response to the draft national plan to improve literacy ... · department of language, literacy,...

Department of Language, Literacy, and Mathematics Education Page 0

RESPONSE TO THE DRAFT NATIONAL

PLAN TO IMPROVE LITERACY AND

NUMERACY IN SCHOOLS

Department of Language, Literacy, and

Mathematics Education

An Roinn Teanga, Litearthachta,

agus Matoideachais

Mary Immaculate

College

University of Limerick

Department of Language, Literacy, and Mathematics Education

1 Response to the Draft National Plan to Improve Literacy and Numeracy in Schools

PREFACE / RÉAMHRÁ

The Department of Language, Literacy, and Mathematics Education, Mary Immaculate College,

University of Limerick, which has as its primary responsibility the preparation and education of

student teachers in language (English and Gaeilge) and Mathematics Education welcomes the

report and the public debate on Better Literacy and Numeracy for Children and Young People: A

National Draft Plan to Improve Literacy and Numeracy in School.

There is universal agreement on the critical importance of literacy and numeracy skills for our

children. As teacher educators we have a key role to play in the preparation of teachers to

undertake the challenge of successful promotion of children’s literacy and numeracy skills.

However, it is important to note that Initial Teacher Education is but one important component

of this process, along with Induction and Continuing Professional Development. The significance

of the quality of teaching and learning in literacy and numeracy in our schools at primary and

post primary level cannot be overstated.

The Department of Language, Literacy, and Mathematics Education comprises thirteen full-time

staff members plus a number of part-time staff. The department members have many years

teaching experience and hold qualifications at the highest academic level, along with a very high

profile (national and international) as researchers in the fields of language (English and Gaeilge)

and Mathematics Education.

The invitation from the Minister for Education to respond to this Draft Plan is timely in light of

the findings published recently by the OECD indicating a significant drop in standards of literacy

and numeracy in the Irish school system and with the imminent introduction of a four-year

B.Ed. degree programme in the Colleges of Education.

Our Department engaged willingly and enthusiastically with the report. However, it was felt

that the inclusion of the Colleges of Education in the drafting of such an important document

would have enhanced the report significantly. Also, an indication in the Draft Plan of the criteria

used to evaluate the lessons observed in English and Mathematics would have enlightened

significantly the debate on the report.

Luaitear sa dréachtphlean ar litearthacht agus uimhearthacht go mbaineann sé le chéad teanga

na scoile ach is léir ón dtuairisc go ndearnadh neamhaird ar fad orthu siúd arb í an Ghaeilge an

chéad teanga acu, scoileanna Gaeltachta agus scoileanna lán-Ghaeilge.

The success of any approach to improve the standards of literacy and numeracy will depend on

a coherent and integrated plan developed and agreed by all the key stakeholders, teachers,

those involved in pre-service teacher education, induction and continuing professional

development, with CPD being a mandatory and integral part of the school year for each

teacher.



The ultimate success of any plan is its implementation and the provision of adequate resources.

Ní mór na hacmhainní cuí a chur ar fáil chun an bhó seo a chur thar abhainn mar ní chothaíonn

na briathra na bráithre.

As Head of Department I wish to thank and commend my colleagues for this comprehensive

and insightful response to the Draft National Plan to Improve Literacy and Numeracy in Schools.

_______________

Seán de Brún

Head of Department / Ceann Roinne


An Roinn Teanga, Litearthachta, agus Matoideachais

February / Feabhra 2011



CONTENTS / CLÁR

English Language 4 - 42

Mathematics Education 43 - 83

Gaeilge 84 - 90



English Language

Dr. Áine Cregan, Teresa McElhinney,

Dr. John Doyle, Dr. Martin Gleeson

Mary Immaculate

College




1 INTRODUCTION As teacher educators with responsibility for the teaching of the pedagogy of English, we

welcome the invitation extended by Mary Coughlan, TD, to respond to the recent publication

Better Literacy and Numeracy for Children and Young People: A Draft National Plan to Improve

Literacy and Numeracy in Schools. We view this opportunity to contribute to the shaping of

policy in literacy education very much as part of an on-going dialogic process through which

ideas are shaped and transformed. Such reflection and debate is timely, given the startling and

unsettling findings recently published by the OECD, indicating a sharp drop in standards of

literacy and numeracy in the Irish School system.

It is very much to be welcomed that this is a Draft Plan, and that a response is encouraged, so

that as many voices as possible participate in the process to ensure that the best possible action

to support the effective development of literacy and numeracy is taken into the future. It is

essential, however, that this debate is a rigorous one which is informed by current and relevant

research, best practice and subject expertise. We believe that the starting point for this debate

must be an appreciation of the complexity of factors affecting the language and literacy

development of our learners.

Specifically we welcome:



This response focuses on those aspects of the Draft Plan targeted at improving literacy levels. It

is organised around the twin pillars of Vision for improved literacy and Implementation factors

to deliver improved literacy as presented in the Draft Plan. It articulates a vision for the

development of improved literacy which considers such factors as:

The opportunity for debate regarding literacy issues and curricular reform

Reconfiguration of ITE programmes in Literacy and Numeracy with increased opportunity for students to become familiar with research based best practice

The recommendation to devise specific learning outcomes at five points of children’s literacy development in primary school

The reaffirmation of the central leadership role to be played by the principal in curricular areas and in guiding his/her staff through the change process

The encouragement for schools to engage in the process of self-reflection in the identification of their own priorities for Continued Professional Development

The commitment of robust support to be provided to NQTs through the national teacher induction programme

Increased opportunities for teachers to understand children’s literacy development and research based best practice through expanded CPD provision



In tandem with the vision for improved literacy, this response considers also how such a vision

might be implemented, with particular reference to the importance of teacher knowledge, and

the professional development of teachers through Initial Teacher Education and Continuing

Professional Development.

2 VISION FOR IMPROVED LITERACY

2.1 Definition of Literacy

A Definition of Literacy

A Rationale for Improving Literacy Skills

1999 English Language Curriculum

Early Primary Years Perspective

Assessment of Literacy

Literacy for Children in Contexts Designated as Disadvantaged

Literacy and the Involvement of Parents



The broader inclusive definition of literacy in the Draft Plan is very much to be welcomed, but

the socio-cultural context of literacy development needs to be acknowledged in a meaningful

definition of literacy, as evident in the NESF report – “A social-cultural view of literacy (Hall,

2003, p.55) argues that learning to read and write cannot be removed from the context in

which it happens and understanding this is as important as the technical skills” (NESF, 2009,

p.16). Cook-Gumperz (2006) argues for embedding the development of literacy firmly within a

socio-cultural context. She contends that ‘as socially constructed, literacy is best regarded as

part of an ideology of language, a socio-cultural phenomenon where literacy and orality coexist

within a broader communicative framework not as opposites, but as different ways of achieving

the same communicative ends’ (ibid., p.3). Given the critical impact of variation in patterns of

language use among children on the development of literacy skills and on success in the school

context, (e.g. Eivers et al.,2004; Pellegrini, 2002, Pellegriini and Galda, 1998; Dickinson and

Moreton, 1991; Dickinson and Sprague, 2002; Olson, 1977; Snow, 1983), it is imperative that

the socio-cultural perspective is included in a broad-ranging definition of literacy to underpin

a national plan for the improvement of literacy skills among children.

In addition, it is critical that an agreed, fully comprehensive and accurate definition of literacy is

clearly represented through the consistent use of unambiguous terminology throughout the

Draft Plan. Why, for example is the term ‘language skills’ used separately in the heading on

page 25 as being given priority if, as stated in the definition of literacy in the introduction,

spoken language is included as part of the development of literacy, and conversely, on page 29,

why are key literacy skills referred to as phonemic awareness, phonics, sight vocabulary,

spelling and the development of fluency and comprehension, with no reference to oral

language development?

2.2 Rationale

The brief rationale for the Draft National Plan to Improve Literacy and Numeracy in Schools

indicates that:

Reading scores have not improved in over thirty years as measured on National Assessments of English Reading

Poor achievement in literacy among children in disadvantaged schools has been a concern for some time

Some recent evidence from inspections in primary schools has revealed that a significant proportion of lessons in English are not satisfactory



Given the range of sources available in a national context throughout the past ten years, it is

surprising that the rationale does not include insights derived from National Reading

Assessments, reviews of the implementation of the 1999 English Language Curriculum, reports

regarding Standards of Literacy and Numeracy in Disadvantaged Schools and insights gained

from analysis of Whole School Evaluations.

Such analysis could have included commentary on the recommendations of the 2004 National

Assessment of English Reading (ERC, 2005) which indicated that average performance in

reading among pupils in fifth class had not shown significant improvement since 1980. It is

worth noting that this report indicated that “ no single initiative, activity or change is likely to

lead to a substantial increase in reading standards” and went on to make several

recommendations regarding differentiated reading instruction, supporting children’s reading

comprehension skills, developing effective home-school reading links in the promotion of

children’s literacy skills, recognising the need for effective whole school approaches to literacy

instruction and the increased levels of support required for children in DEIS schools.

Furthermore, it would have been desirable and worthwhile to analyse the policies of effective

literacy instruction in high performing countries cited in the Draft Plan such as Finland, Canada,

Australia and New Zealand and outline the possibilities for emulating this practice in an Irish

context.

2.3 1999 English Language Curriculum

Reviews of the implementation of the 1999 English Language Curriculum by the NCCA and the

Inspectorate identified concerns regarding the difficulties encountered with planning using the

curriculum strands , the co-ordination of whole school and classroom planning, whole school

policy on assessment, differentiation, oral language development, effective collaboration with

parents and effective instructional practices to support children’s writing development.

Furthermore, the rationale contains no analysis of contemporary research regarding

international best practice in effective literacy instruction. Fortunately, this research is

voluminous, of high quality and for the most part unequivocal on the key instructional

There is one inescapable conclusion to be drawn here, namely, that there have been

concerns about the structure and content the 1999 English Language Curriculum for some

time.

Surprisingly, the rationale contains no discussion of these major recommendations or the

initiatives to improve literacy standards in schools arising from them.



components necessary to support the literacy development of all children. Such knowledge has

been identified from renowned reviews of the scientific research literature of the past twenty

years including,

The insights gained from these reviews and the contributions of researchers of international

repute on key instructional elements such as word identification, (Ehri, Blachmann, Stanovich,

Shaywitz, Stahl), vocabulary, (Baumann, Beck, Mc. Keown, Kucan, Graves) fluency, (Rasinski,

Kuhn,) comprehension(Pressley, Duke, Pearson, Afflerbach, Collins-Block, Keene, Harvey,

Raphael), and assessment, (Walpole, McKenna, Rathvon) have contributed significantly to the

development of a plan for the enhancement of children’s literacy development.

• (Adams:1990)

Thinking and Learning about Print

• (Snow, Burns& Griffin, Eds. 1998)

Preventing Reading Difficulties in Young Children

National Reading Panel (2000)

•(Kamil, Mosenthal, Pearson & Barrr, Eds. 2000)

Handbook of Reading Research Volume 3

•(Farstrup & Samuels, Eds. 2002)

What Research Has to Say About Reading Instruction

•(Dickinson & Newman, 2002/2006)

Handbook of Early Literacy Research

•(Australian Government, 2005)

Teaching Reading

• (Pressley, 2006)

Reading Instruction That Works

•(Gambrell, Mandel-Morrow, Pressley)

Best Practices in Literacy Instruction

National Early Literacy Panel Report, (2008)

•(Kamil, Pearson, Moje & Afflerbach, 2010)

The Handbook of Reading Research Volume Four



2.4 Balanced Literacy Instruction

A confluence of opinion among international literacy researchers has led to the promotion of

balanced literacy instruction as the means through which literacy should be explicitly

developed in schools. This balanced approach envisages literacy instruction by knowledgeable

teachers, who have the ability and confidence to select the most appropriate instructional

approach to facilitate the literacy development of each individual child. One useful definition

and example of this integrated balanced approach is offered by Cowen (2003):

Unfortunately, the 1999 English Language Curriculum does not reflect this balanced integrated approach to effective literacy instruction which has been so prevalent in literacy research in the past decade. Perhaps this is understandable given that the present curriculum has been in use for the past eleven years. However, it is surprising that the Draft Plan does not prioritise the update of the present curriculum to reflect current international best practice as an immediate priority in the improvement of literacy standards in this country.

Specifically, the curriculum needs to reflect the following elements of balanced literacy

instruction:

A balanced reading approach is research-based, assessment-based,

comprehensive, integrated and dynamic, in that it empowers teachers and

specialists to respond to the individual assessed literacy needs of children as

they relate to their appropriate instructional and developmental levels of

decoding, vocabulary, reading comprehension, motivation and socio-cultural

acquisition with the purpose of learning to read for meaning, understanding

and joy.

(Cowen, 2003:10)



Current scientific research on effective early literacy instruction is unequivocal on the

importance of an integrated programme of phonological / phonemic awareness training, shared

/ emergent writing, explicit phonics instruction, sight vocabulary, shared reading and guided

reading of levelled text on children’s word identification development. While the present

curriculum promotes the development of sight vocabulary, shared and guided reading and

writing, it offers insufficient guidance on the importance of phonemic awareness training and

its impact on children’s reading and spelling development. There is no reference to the

importance of explicit systematic phonics instruction as a key element of effective word

identification instruction. This is surprising given the recommendations regarding systematic

phonics instruction in every major report on reading instruction from The First Grade Studies

(Bond & Dykstra, 1967) to the National Early Literacy Panel (2008).

There are no examples of the stages associated with children’s emergent writing development

or the impact of phonemic awareness training and shared writing on the development of same.

However the greatest lacuna is the failure to transmit the vital complementary nature of

reading and writing instruction in support of children’s early literacy development.

Similarly, while opportunities to promote children’s oral reading fluency have long been

considered essential elements of effective early literacy instructional programmes, they are

noteworthy by their absence from the 1999 English Language Curriculum. In this respect the

curriculum would benefit from the inclusion of a range of appropriate strategies to promote

children’s oral reading fluency development, including, Choral Reading, Echo Reading,

Repeated Reading, Paired Reading, Readers’ Theatre, to name but a salient few.

Balanced Literacy

Instruction

Phonological -Phonemic awareness instruction

Emergent Writing –invented spelling

Systematic phonics

instruction

Promotion of oral reading

fluency

Vocabulary development

Effective comprehension

instruction

Genre writing

Promotion of effective home-school reading partnerships



However, the need to update the curriculum is particularly compelling in the case of effective

comprehension instruction, as the improvement of children’s comprehension has consistently

been highlighted in recommendations made in reports of reading standards, and

implementations of the 1999 English Language Curriculum throughout the past decade.

Unfortunately this continues to be the case as the first recommendation arising from the 2009

National Assessments of Mathematics and English Reading suggests

The 1999 English Language Curriculum envisions the ‘development of higher comprehension

skills from the middle classes on’ (Ireland, Department of Education and Science, 1999:61). In

fact prediction is the only comprehension strategy that is advocated between junior infants and

second class. It is only in third class that comprehension strategies such as evaluation, analysis,

assimilation and summarisation are to be introduced. Proficiency in word identification skills is

prioritised in the early years, with comprehension being developed when the child can read

with accuracy and fluency. However, current research suggests that comprehension strategy

instruction is also an essential component of effective early literacy instruction. (Collins-Block,

Rodgers & Johnson, 2004; Gleeson, Courtney et.al. 2010).

Of the ten comprehension ‘skills’ addressed, only five correspond with those validated by

international research – summarisation, inference, prediction, synthesis and evaluation. Despite

the international debate on the importance of distinguishing between ‘skills’ and ‘strategies’

(Duffy & Roehler, 1987; Afflerbach et al., 2008), there is much imprecision in the language used

in the Revised Curriculum. While the curriculum espouses much of the language associated with

comprehension, it would benefit from appropriate examples of effective comprehension

instruction based on current research.

A robust body of research (National Reading Panel, 2000; Duke and Pearson, 2002; Block and

Duffy, 2008; Raphael et al., 2009) demonstrates that explicitly teaching children strategies for

understanding what they are reading, improves comprehension in a range of text genres.

Reading strategies are the reader’s deliberate goal-directed attempts to control and modify

their efforts to decode text, understand words and construct knowledge (Afflerbach, Pearson

and Paris, 2008:69). Comprehension Strategy Instruction (CSI) enables children to become

purposeful, active readers who are in control of their own reading comprehension. It is

accepted in reading research (Block & Paris, 2008; Gill, 2008) that the following strategies form

the core of an instructional framework in CSI:

“the promotion of self-regulated comprehension strategies at all class levels across a range

of paper and digital texts”

(DES, 2010:89).



Research suggests that the strategies are most effectively taught through the application of a

Gradual Release of Responsibility Model of Instruction (Pearson & Gallagher), with the

emphasis on teacher modeling and direct instruction of individual strategies in the earlier

stages, progressing to a scaffolded approach with children working in mixed ability collaborative

groups and ultimately enabling children to become self-regulated strategic readers.

While there is frequent reference to the promotion of higher order thinking skills throughout

the Draft Plan, the cognitive strategies that enable children to develop such skills namely,

prediction, visualisation, questioning, making connections, clarifying, making inferences,

determining importance and synthesising are developed across all curricular areas and are not

solely the preserve of the English Language component of the Primary School Curriculum.

2.5 Oral Language and Literacy Development

Substantial research has addressed the relationship between facility with oral language, and the

acquisition and development of literacy skills in what has been referred to as ‘mounting

evidence of the key role of oral language in supporting reading’ (Dickinson et al., 2003, p.466).

It is important to note the abundance of research which highlights that while code-related skills

such as phonological awareness are particularly important in the initial phases of learning to

read, a broad range of oral language skills (such as knowledge of vocabulary, syntax, discourse

skills, oral comprehension, productive narrative skills) become increasingly important as

children move past the code-breaking phase into aspects of literacy such as fluency and

comprehension (e.g. Bowyer-Crane et al., 2008; Catts and Kamhi, 1999; Dickenson et al., 2003,

Co

mp

reh

ensi

on

Str

ateg

y In

stru

ctio

n

Prediction

Visualisation

Making Connections

Questioning

Clarifying

Determining Importance

Inferring

Synthesising.



Locke et al., 2002; Muter et al., 2004). These findings underpin the importance of oral

language for the development of literacy skills at all levels, not exclusively in early childhood

education. Reference to oral language development in the Draft Plan is most particularly

aligned with this early developmental stage (see for example, section 1.5, p.12), implying that,

contrary to research evidence, it is only at the early childhood phase that oral language

development is really important.

Building on international movements in curriculum development which highlighted the

significance of oral language as a foundation for success in school, the promotion of oral

language in Irish primary schools is very much in evidence in recent curriculum documents

(1971; 1999). Notably, in the Revised Primary Curriculum (English) (1999) there is an increased

emphasis placed on oral language development such that language learning is characterised as

an integrated process involving the development of oral language, reading and writing, in which

oral language is given a key role throughout the curriculum, recognised as having a central place

in the process of language development and given an equal weighting in the integrated

language learning process. In fact, oral language is identified as being ‘the single most

important element in realising the integrated language learning experience’ (p.26). Critically,

however, reports have consistently shown that oral language development remains

problematic in its implementation in classrooms, both internationally (e.g. Alexander, 2003;

Corden, 2007; Wasik et al., 2006) and in the Irish context (e.g. DES, 2005; DES, 2010).

Giving priority to language skills, literacy and numeracy as emphasised in the Draft Plan (p.25) is

therefore very much to be welcomed. Noteworthy in this regard is the response in the Draft

Plan to findings of evaluations of the implementation of the English Curriculum (e.g. DES, 2005;

LANS, 2005; NCCA, 2005; Cregan, 2010) that there is a need to get the content of the

curriculum right (p.25), in particular in the form of less obscure, more precise learning

outcomes (p.25; 44) to support effective implementation in the classroom.

The proposal, however, that teachers should be required “to emphasise the development of

literacy and numeracy above all other aspects of the curriculum” (p.25) and “to use all

discretionary curriculum time for the teaching of literacy and numeracy” (p.30), with the

concomitant effect of reducing time available for a range of other curricular areas seems

counterintuitive at the least, especially given the research evidence to support the development

Commitment to improving both the content of the English curriculum and its accessibility for

teachers is key to promoting better literacy development in Irish primary classrooms.

It is critically important that oral language development is promoted throughout the

education process, given its significance in the development of literacy skills.



of literacy skills across a range of curricular areas. The raison d’etre for this proposal appears to

be based on an argument that a consequence of introducing new subjects to the primary

curriculum ‘may have been a reduction of the amount of time devoted to the core areas of

literacy and numeracy” (p.28). However, no evidence for this conclusion is presented. The

proposal appears contradictory in light of the much repeated aspiration in the Draft Plan that

the teaching of literacy would be “integrated across all aspects of the curriculum” (pps.13; 17;

25). It is suggested that “there is little evidence of a focus on literacy development outside of

the teaching of English” (p.28). . This would seem to point a way forward – rather than

reducing the number of subjects on the curriculum, surely increasing the focus on literacy

development across these subjects would achieve the desired outcome.

2.6 Writing and Literacy Development

Research into the reading and writing behaviours of young children challenges the traditional

idea that children’s language development occurs in an organised sequence, i.e. oral language,

followed by reading, then followed by writing (Lerner and Kline, 2006, p.430; Heller, 1999,

p.399). Lerner (2000, p.442) describes writing as ‘the most sophisticated and complex

achievement of the language system’, through which we integrate ‘previous learnings and

experiences in listening, speaking and reading’. Current thinking, in identifying the many

connections between written language and oral language and reading, emphasises the

integrated nature of language development, which begins long before children enter school and

which should be reflected in schools’ language curricula (Evers, Lang and Smith, 2009, p.461;

Lerner and Kline, 2006, p.431; Government of Ireland, 1999, p.2; Heller, 1999, p.20).

The English Language segment of the Irish primary curriculum, which was revised in 1999,

envisages language learning as an integrated process in which the three forms - oral language,

reading, and writing - are inseparable (Government of Ireland, 1999a, p.45). In relation to

writing - sometimes seen as the silent ‘R’ (NWP and Nagin, 2003, p.2) or ‘the ignored stepchild

of reading’ (Bradley, 2001, p.118) - the curriculum emphasises that together with oral language

and reading, writing has an equal contribution to make to the child’s language development.

The Draft Plan, however, does not seem to acknowledge in as unambiguous a manner the

‘equal contribution’ that both reading and writing make ‘to the child’s language development’.

In some instances (e.g. p.11) the document uses the term ‘literacy’ in reference to reading and

writing, but generally the document discusses literacy in the context of reading, and almost

exclusively in terms of those elements of reading which can be evaluated and assessed easily.

Adopting, and in turn transmitting to children, a similarly narrow view of writing results in

children, ‘who struggle to write...(construing) writing as perfect spelling and grammar and/or

neat penmanship’ (Bradley, 2001, p.118), elements which are easily identifiable and can be

corrected. While good spelling, grammar and penmanship are essential skills for a writer,

nevertheless, to attain competence in writing, writers must also be proficient in such areas as



generating ideas, planning, organising, drafting, editing and redrafting writing. Attaining such

competence is ‘hard work’, according to Resnick and Hampton (2009, p.17) who write that:

Similarly, in discouraging a limited view of writing, Lerner and Kline (2006, p.443), draw

attention to the many related abilities that writing requires, such as, facility in spoken language,

the ability to read, and cognitive strategies for problem solving.

In order to become competent writers and to engage in the type of writing required by society,

students need to build a foundation beginning in the primary school. In laying this foundation,

teachers adopt effective approaches. In the English Language Curriculum, and by extension in

the Draft Plan, Process Writing is the approach which is advocated. This is an acknowledged

effective approach to the teaching of writing. However, it is only one approach. There are

others, such as

to name but a few. A curriculum which advocates the use of such varied approaches will

recognise that the knowledge and skills required to understand and produce particular writing

genres, as well as those required to teach them, are best acquired by engaging in such activities

as writing for some authentic purpose or writing in a real genre for a real audience (Hampton

and Resnick, 2009, p.56; Duke et al, 2006, p.345; Eskey in Ferris, 2003, p.55). Thus, children are

encouraged to draw on their experiences, both in and out of school, in relation to areas such as

hobbies, friends, parties, trips, television programmes and children's literature (Lerner and

Kline, 2006, p.465), and to write for readers ‘who will read the written text for its

communicative purpose and not solely for evaluation’ (Duke et al, 2006, p.352).

2.7 Early Primary Years Perspective

In their joint position statement of 1998 on early literacy development, the International

Reading Association (IRA) and the National Association for the Education of Young Children

(NAEYC) state that the early childhood years are the most important for literacy development.

Thus sections 4.2 and 4.3 of the Draft Plan deserve particular attention as they focus on early

Genre Writing

On-Demand Writing

Strategic Writing

Writing Across the Curriculum

Students…must understand that getting ideas down on paper is only a first step. They must be willing to rethink how these ideas are organised and expressed and to examine a draft in light of how well it communicates. They must make needed changes willingly…They must assume responsibility for various rounds of changes until, finally, the document communicates and is as good as they can make it…



childhood education and the proposed actions to improve literacy and numeracy in the early

years.

One of the key developments in early childhood education has been the focus on

developmentally appropriate practices (DAP). The NAEYC articulates this philosophy in their

1996 position paper by defining the developmentally appropriate curriculum as one which,

amongst other criteria, provides for all areas of a child’s development, includes a broad range of

socially relevant, intellectually engaging and personally meaningful content across disciplines

and whose plans frequently integrate across subject areas to encourage children to make

meaningful connections and provide opportunities for rich conceptual development

(Bredekamp & Copple, 1997).

Developmentally appropriate infant classrooms are joyful places where effective teachers

prioritise the nurturing of a love of books, story, reading and language while at the same time

systematically and explicitly teaching the critical aspects of emergent and early literacy

development. A similar emphasis would be welcomed in this Draft Plan; it is regrettable that a

national plan for better literacy makes no reference to any of the following:

Perhaps the promised ‘relentless focus on literacy’ has forsaken the joy of reading in favour of a

more narrowly focussed programme that produces measurable results through standardised

assessment. We owe our children more.

As the Draft Plan refers frequently to Aistear, the 2009 curriculum framework for children from

birth to six years in Ireland, the role of Aistear in ‘getting the curriculum right’ merits some

scrutiny. It is important to note that we welcome this significant NCCA publication as it brings to

a wider audience much of our philosophy of early years teaching (on the Bachelor of Education

and Graduate Diploma in Education: Primary Teaching programmes), e.g. an emphasis on play,

play-based approaches, active learning, holistic and integrated learning, and social interaction.

Here, our purpose is to examine its proposed role in the Draft Plan to improve literacy.

To begin with, the references to this proposed role are not always consistent. It is stated initially

that the intention is that ‘over time’ Aistear ‘replaces the present infant curriculum’ (p.16).

Subsequent references, however, are made to the need for the Primary School Curriculum (PSC)

to be ‘amended to reflect the approach that should be used from three to six years’ (p.26),

‘restructure*d+ so that it builds seamlessly on the approaches to teaching and learning

advocated in the Aistear framework’ (p.27) and ‘review*ed+ to bring it into line with the

story

storybook

pleasure of reading

motivation



approaches to teaching and learning advocated in the Aistear framework’ (p.27). The

uncertainty of approach is further accentuated by the later proposed action to ‘review the

contents of the L1 curriculum to make clear the learning outcomes to be expected in each of

the strands; this review to build upon the alignment of the infant curriculum with the Aistear

curricular framework’ (p.29). This would appear to imply that some alignment of the ‘infant

curriculum’ with Aistear is to precede a review of the L1 curriculum contents. Yet there is no

explicit stand-alone ‘infant curriculum’ to date. The PSC is presented in seven curricular areas

and the content of each is presented in levels corresponding to four two-year cycles, the first of

these being junior and senior infants. A much clearer statement, therefore, is needed of how

Aistear is to impact on the curriculum (i.e. as a replacement or as a complementary framework)

and of its place in the sequence of curricular reform.

What is clear, however, is that Aistear is considered to have a key role to play in the curricular

reform advocated by this Draft Plan. Thus it is essential to examine Aistear’s approach to the

teaching of literacy in the early years. Aistear uses four themes to outline children’s learning

and development, aligning two of these themes, Communicating and Exploring and Thinking,

most closely with the subject area of English in the separate NCCA audit of Aistear and the PSC

(NCCA, 2009). While the aims, learning goals and ‘sample learning opportunities’ for ‘young

children’ (defined as aged 2½ to 6 so not directly comparable with the age of the infant class

cohort) given in the framework are valid ones, it is important to note that they are general in

nature and that key literacy skills identified in this Draft Plan - ‘phonemic awareness, phonics,

sight vocabulary ... and the development of fluency and comprehension’ – are not specifically

referred to in Aistear. Indeed, the audit makes clear that Aistear does not prioritise early literacy

and numeracy, unlike the PSC which states:

In their Report for the Joint Committee on Education and Skills (October, 2010), the NCCA state

that ‘one of the key differences between Aistear and the ‘Infant Curriculum’ is that

‘...Aistear highlights the importance of and provides examples of how to help young children

become confident and competent speakers, listeners, emergent writers and readers, as well

as skilled thinkers. The Primary School Curriculum prioritises literacy and numeracy but as

curriculum reviews and more recent research have shown, gives limited practical examples to

teachers of how to support children’s language and literacy development.’

‘Within the context of a broad and relevant curriculum and a commitment to the highest

quality of educational provision for all, the particular goals associated with literacy and

numeracy are a priority of the curriculum. The acquisition of literacy and numeracy skills is

central to effective learning in every area of the curriculum and to the child’s social and

community life outside school.’

(Introduction, 1999, p. 26)



In fact, while there is much to be welcomed in Aistear, it is important to note that it does not

adequately address the above identified PSC shortcomings as it makes little explicit reference to

the key literacy skills and how they are to be developed and assessed in the infant classes.

For example, play is correctly identified in Aistear as ‘one of the foundations for literacy and

numeracy’; the Aistear information leaflet for primary teachers offers a Q&A example of how

the framework ‘gives an insight to the types of practical information and ideas which the new

curriculum framework offers primary school teachers in planning for and using play to support

young children’s learning’. In this example, a teacher of 28 junior infants who wishes to

prioritise play as a medium of learning asks how, given the pupil to teacher ratio and the lack of

space and equipment, she can incorporate play in her classroom. Part of the proffered solution

is as follows: ‘Could you do with a few less tables or could you rearrange them into a smaller

space? Instead of having presses and bookshelves flat against the wall, could you turn them into

dividers to create small, child-sized spaces for floor play? ... Resources for play can be expensive

... there are alternatives: Shoe-boxes make great building blocks.’ The Draft Plan in stating that

the focus in Aistear on play and ‘on communicating, ,and- on exploring and thinking ... will be

new to many teachers working with infant classes’ fails to acknowledge the existing expertise

and professionalism of our primary teachers who plan daily learning opportunities for the

development of communicating, exploring and thinking skills in their classroom. If the Draft Plan

offers Aistear’s ideas as radical solutions to the literacy problem, it should at least be aware that

many of its strategies (e.g. using ‘pretend play...to develop children’s literacy and numeracy

skills’ and using ‘storytelling to promote higher-order thinking skills’) have been employed for

many years in many infant classrooms. We should question the value of presenting the obvious

and familiar as innovative practices to a well-educated professional teaching body that may see

these suggestions as at best amusing and at worst patronising. What teachers need is a

curriculum that specifies content, methodologies, learning outcomes and assessment

procedures that reflect the elements of balanced literacy instruction outlined earlier in this

response.

The proposed action to ‘Restructure the infant curriculum so that it builds seamlessly on the

approaches to teaching and learning advocated in the Aistear framework’ includes as one of its

five points the following: ‘Provide for a print saturated environment within the infant

classroom.’ Noteworthy here is the terminology, ‘print saturated’ replacing the accepted ‘print-

rich’. The importance of a print-rich environment is well highlighted in the PSC, getting frequent

mention and indeed a dedicated section in the English Language: Teacher Guidelines chapter on

Approaches and Methodologies. How then does this merit being part of the action of

restructuring the infant curriculum? Is this a case of the Emperor’s new clothes?

The Draft Plan acknowledges the data that points to beneficial effects of low adult-child ratios

in early years education and comments that Finland ‘sets the benchmark for literacy

performance’; the recommended adult-child ratio for 3-6 year olds in a school setting in Finland

is 1:13. One would expect, then, that the lowering of the adult-child ratio in infant classes



would be one of the Draft Plan’s key proposals. Instead it states that ‘Lower adult-child ratios in

junior and senior infant classes would help to facilitate the sort of learning that is envisaged in

Aistear. If this is to be achieved over time then it will be necessary to prioritise infant classes in

the allocation of available teachers.’ It is disappointing that, rather than a commitment to

deploying extra staff for infant classes, there seems to be a suggestion of reshuffling existing

staff with the inevitable consequence of greater numbers in more senior classes. In fact, this is a

practice which has been used informally in many schools in an effort to compensate for lack of

teaching staff. The Draft Plan needs to clarify whether its brief is to propose the best possible

approach to the teaching of literacy or to work within a particular economic framework. While

the latter is unavoidable, it raises the question of how limited resources are to be best used and

with that an acknowledgement of the challenge to teachers who will be working to implement

to the best of their ability the finalised plan for better literacy in our schools.

The ‘indicative target date’ for the availability of the revised infant curriculum - ‘from 2012 -

2013’ – is also a matter for concern. Has Aistear been properly piloted in a sufficiently wide

range of infant classes and if so, have the findings of the pilot evaluation been published? The

Draft Plan acknowledges that the ‘implementation of the approaches advocated by Aistear for

all children in the 3-6 years age group presents a considerable challenge’; it is essential, then,

that these approaches are fully evaluated in the infant classroom setting before any curricular

change is implemented. The process of revising the 1971 curriculum was a lengthy one,

beginning with the work of the Review Body on the Primary Curriculum, which published its

report (The Quinlan Report) in 1990; the PSC was launched in 1999. Should the proposed

restructured curriculum not be the product of a similar rigorous process? We cannot afford to

act first and think later – it is the children of Ireland who will pay the price for hasty, ill-planned

curricular reform.

Questions also remain to be answered in relation to the nature of the CPD to be provided for

teachers. One of the five bullet points under the action ‘Restructure the infant curriculum so

that it builds seamlessly on the approaches to teaching and learning advocated in the Aistear

framework’ reads as follows: ‘provide continuing professional development for teachers in the

roll-out of the revised curriculum.’ At present, a small number of Aistear tutors have been

trained countrywide and some Education Centres are providing Aistear workshops for primary

teachers. Are all teachers to receive mandatory training in Aistear? If so, is this to be provided in

parallel with CPD for the roll-out of the revised curriculum?

2.8 Educational Disadvantage

Studies exploring the relationship between marginalisation and educational achievement have

found that ‘children from marginalised populations the world over consistently underperform

academically as compared to their peers from communities of power and status’ (Purcell-Gates,

2008, p.12; Rescorla & Alley, 2001; Juel et al., 1986; Lonigan & Whitehurst, 1998; Whitehurst,



1996). Recognising this, the Draft Plan rightly points to the need to target “available additional

resources on learners at risk of failure to achieve adequate levels of literacy and numeracy”

(p.33). It is critically important that these available additional resources are deployed

strategically for maximum benefit in these straitened times. In light of this, it is disappointing

that the first full report of the evaluation of the DEIS initiative is not yet available to inform

decisions taken on resourcing to maximise the development of these children’s potential in

literacy development, particularly since early indications are that ‘schools are not universally

successful’ (p.34).

It is problematic also that the Draft Plan only commits to continue to support the learning of

children in DEIS urban schools (p.34), with no reference to those DEIS schools in rural contexts.

The anticipation that the required professional development support for teachers in these

contexts can be delivered by a mere twenty literacy development advisors (p.35) is worrying.

The emphasis on improved target setting (p.35) in these schools is very much to be welcomed,

although how it is envisaged that “supports for this can be strengthened to enhance best

practice in planning and target setting” (p.35) with a reduced team of advisors is unclear. In the

context of disadvantage it is of concern that oral language development again appears to be

targeted only at the pre-school level and only in those pre-schools that act as feeders for DEIS

Urban Band 1 schools (p.35). This reductionist approach to the development of oral language

skills where they are most needed is gravely concerning in light of earlier evidence of the critical

connection between successful literacy development and facility with oral language, and the

particular importance of this among children from non-mainstream contexts.

The approach recommended for enhanced oral language development favours the adoption of

a “proven” oral language development programme. This programme is not named. It is

suggested in a footnote (p.33) that DEIS schools have access to specialised initiatives in literacy.

Only one of these initiatives - First Steps - has an oral language strand. While it is essential to

make appropriate resources available and accessible to teachers, there is a danger that in

promoting one particular approach one sends the message to teachers: Follow this approach

and it will solve the problem. In effect, the ‘programme’ or ‘approach’ then becomes the

‘curriculum’, containing all that is needed to address children’s difficulties in literacy. Such an

oversimplification of the complex task of supporting children’s literacy development in primary

school fails to take sufficient account of one essential element, teacher expertise. The success

of any initiative to improve children’s literacy is largely determined by the quality of the

teaching. Is there a danger that an over-reliance on a ‘one-size-fits-all’ approach may result in

some teachers seeing a programme like Reading Recovery or First Steps as an alternative to

good classroom teaching, rather than another approach (among a range of approaches) which

complements good classroom practice in order to enable children to access and engage in their

classroom curriculum? Surely, it would be better to up-skill all teachers to develop approaches

to the teaching of Oral Language, Reading and Writing, which might more usefully deliver the

required developments and be more sustainable in the long-term.



The recognition of the importance of “academic language skills” (p.36) is laudatory and marks a

significant awareness of the profound nature of the compounding of disadvantage experienced

by many children in DEIS and other schools by virtue of their variety of language. It is critical

that schools and teachers are empowered and supported to acknowledge the existence of, and

to respond to, this need at all levels of the education process. In pursuit of this goal, to

problematise children as being deficient (p.36) in any way must be resisted.

2.9 Parental Involvement

We welcome the proposed action to ‘provide direct supports to parents to encourage them to

support their children’s language, literacy and numeracy development’ (p.48) and the

recognition of parental engagement as ‘critically important in the early years, particularly in the

development of children’s language skills and emergent literacy and numeracy skills’ (p.47).

These ‘direct supports’ must be identified and the means by which they are to be provided

must be made clear. One of the ‘learning experiences’ outlined under the Communicating

theme in Aistear highlights the importance of what we must presume is one of these supports –

the Home School Community Liaison co-ordinator. It is of concern, therefore, that this scheme

(along with other educational support systems such as SNAs and EAL teachers) has been

affected by recent cutbacks. Such cutbacks are inconsistent with the proposed actions of the

Draft Plan.

The Draft Plan recognises the unique context of each school in its proposed action to ‘Ensure

that parental engagement in children’s learning is integrated into each school’s teaching and

learning strategy and development plan’ (p.48). Many schools already draw up a

comprehensive family engagement plan that best meets the needs of their pupils and families;

it is vital that all schools are appropriately enabled to do so through the provision of adequate

funding/logistical support and structures. We believe that teachers of infant classes have a

pivotal role to play in establishing positive relationships with families.

Parental involvement in children’s education is found to be positively associated with academic

achievement across race and culture (e.g. Fan & Chen, 2001; Jeynes, 2003; 2005; West et al.,

1998), There are consistent findings in the literature that children who come from homes where

parents have higher levels of education and higher income levels have more advanced language

skills than other children (e.g. Mantzicopolous, 1997; Snow et al., 1998; Duncan and Brooks-

Gunn, 2000). This is thought to occur as a consequence of variation in parent-child interaction

styles (e.g. Hashima & Amato, 1994; Mistry et al., 2004).

The shortcomings identified in the report in relation to the development of literacy skills of

children at risk need to be addressed as a matter of urgency, in order that the

implementation of this Draft Plan for better literacy in our schools actually delivers improved

literacy development for all our children.



It is important that the Draft Plan recognises the need to enable parents and communities to

support children’s literacy development, and the suggested actions are to be welcomed.

However, to establish meaningful engagement with parents which delivers real change for the

better in improving children’s oral language development needs careful planning if children are

to derive optimum benefit from the process. It will require significant allocation of time,

resources and expertise to deliver results that actually make a difference. Many lessons may be

learned from international research on this question. Successful partnership between school

and parent involves increasing parent knowledge around factors such as the

expectations of the school for parental involvement

the importance of their involvement, and

their capacity to become involved

(e.g. Baker et al., 1995; de Baryshe, 1995; Lynch et al, 2006; Wiegel et al., 2006.)

Parents need to be made aware of the significance of oral language development for their

children, and what they must do to support the school in a meaningful way in developing

their children’s oral language skills (e.g. Hart, 2000; Lynch et al., 2006). A feature of successful

intervention programmes is the need to reduce the confusion for parents of the role the school

expects them to play in supporting their children’s education and to share with parents the

knowledge required to provide this support effectively (e.g. Henderson & Mapp, 2002; Epstein,

1986). This requires clear and regular communication between the institution of the school and

the parents of the community of children it serves.

While a national information campaign will undoubtedly contribute to this process, it is at the

level of each individual school that parent involvement can be most productively harnessed to

the benefit of the child.

Clarity of approach and purpose is paramount to achieve success in this most critical of

initiatives. This is recognised in the Draft Plan (p.48) but no indication of the availability of

resources and no plan to roll out these initiatives in order to achieve these outcomes is

presented. Again, what is articulated in the Draft Plan seems in danger of being laudatory in its

aspiration but lacking the drive and detail to assure stakeholders of meaningful action for

change.

It is critical that resources in the form of additional personnel, increased awareness on the

part of teachers as to how best parents might enhance their children’s oral language skills for

success in school and in the development of literacy skills, and more time to plan and

execute initiatives to reach out to parents meaningfully are made available to schools.



2.10 Assessment

There seems to be a much greater emphasis in the document on summative rather than

formative assessment. (The word test, in one form or another, is mentioned 34 times!)

Emphasis appears to be on assessing/testing children in order to compare their

achievement/ability levels with others both in Ireland and internationally. This type of

assessment is very narrowly focused and will undoubtedly impact on the type of

teaching/learning that goes on in the classroom. Even the various documents/publications

which originated in or were endorsed by the DES promote a broader, more holistic view of

assessment. For example, the NCCA in Assessment in the Primary School Curriculum: Guidelines

for Schools states that ‘assessment involves gathering information to understand better how

each child is progressing...and using that information to further the child’s learning’ (p.7). In

asserting that assessment ‘goes far beyond testing’, the NCCA goes on to describe assessment

in terms of ‘building a picture over time of a child’s progress and/or achievement in learning

across the Primary School Curriculum’, adding that the information ‘about how the child learns

(the learning process) as well as what the child learns (the products of learning) shapes the

picture’ (p.7). Similarly, the English Language: Teacher Guidelines views assessment as a means

of monitoring individual children’s progress in order to ‘plan the contexts, strategies and

content that will contribute most effectively to their learning.’ The Draft Plan itself proposes to:

‘Ensure that children’s development of language and early literacy and numeracy skills are

adequately assessed and monitored in early years education.’ According to the NCCA, the

assessment guidelines in Aistear are intended to build on the information contained in the

aforementioned publication Assessment in the Primary School Curriculum: Guidelines for

Schools. Both these sets of guidelines encourage formative assessment, indeed Aistear

promoting a continuum of assessment methods comprising Self-assessment, Conversations,

Observations, Setting tasks and Testing.

While there is some detail given in the document to the assessment of reading, there is little or

no reference to effective evaluation and assessment of writing. The document does refer to the

data provided by the National Assessments of English Reading, which show that the ‘literacy

skills of Irish students in primary schools...have not improved in over thirty years.’ On examining

these National Assessments, however, one cannot but conclude that any detailed information

contained therein in relation to the children’s success in writing was gathered mainly from

interviews with teachers, rather than from the administration of actual ‘writing tests’.

How does a teacher gather information in relation to a child’s ‘engagement with the writing

process’ (Shiel and Murphy, 2000, p.119)? Current research (as well as DES publications)

advocate using a wide variety of assessment tools, but particularly promote the use of Teacher-

Child Conferencing, a practice widely recognised as being a central element in teaching-

learning, and an acknowledged evaluation/assessment tool used by teachers to monitor, grade

and provide feedback on children’s engagement with and success in the various processes of

writing. The DES itself promotes the effectiveness of such conferencing in children’s



development as writers (English: Language: Teacher Guidelines, p.82), and outlines how, when

used with a clear rubric, teacher-pupil conferencing can provide important assessment

information (Assessment in the Primary School Curriculum: Guidelines for Schools, p.24-26).

Furthermore, the National Assessments, which are referred to a number of times in the Draft

Plan, highlight the reluctance of teachers to provide opportunities for teacher-pupil

conferencing, which they recognise as being a central component of the writing process, as

outlined in the English Language Curriculum. Yet, in the Draft Plan there is a notable absence of

any real discussion on the value of this type of assessment and how it can be used to support

children’s language/literacy development.

Writing Portfolios (using samples of children’s writing) are seen as an effective way of

encouraging children to invest in the literacy process’ (Pahl and Rowsell, 2005, p.126). What

better way to evaluate/assess a child’s writing achievements than to read samples of his/her

writing? But then how does one ‘test’ this? The general thrust of the Draft Plan in relation to

writing (included under the umbrella term literacy, rarely on its own) seems to be on the

acquisition of writing skills, particularly those which are easily assessable, e.g. spelling,

grammar. However, what is required is an effective, holistic and easily-workable assessment

tool for children’s writing.

Assessing oral language skills, while fundamental to enhanced oracy and literacy development,

is cumbersome, time-consuming and challenging. It requires high levels of expertise among

teachers in relation to the precise oral language skills to be assessed and the range of tools to

be used. Assessing competence in oral language is complicated by the fact that oral language

development is recursive, inextricably linked with cognitive and experiential growth. It requires

observation of children in a range of meaningful interactive contexts (e.g. audience, purpose)

over a period of time. This, coupled with the absence of a standardised measuring instrument

to assess oral language in Irish primary classrooms, compounds the difficulty of ‘using baseline

data from assessments to inform the planning of learning goals’ (p. 12).

It is very important that the literacy ‘knowledge, skills and attitudes’ (p.25) are not defined or

described using too narrow a focus. There are many facets to language/literacy – all very

important, but not all easily assessable. Are we to limit our focus to include only those

outcomes which can be measured? Is literacy to be seen once again as ‘a set of transferable

skills, to be transferred and disseminated’ (Pahl and Rowsell, 2005, p.115) and by extension,

easily assessed? If so, how do we measure the effects of ‘good practice’ such as Free Writing,

Independent Reading, Reading and Writing for Pleasure? Surely, any effective assessment of

children’s literacy must include the twin approach of assessing both literacy/language learning

(i.e. gaining mastery of the required skills) and using this learning to engage with and produce

texts in school, at home, in the workplace etc.

The School Like Ours initiative would require teachers to gather evidence from ‘standardised

achievement tests administered in schools towards the end of a phase of the curriculum’, one



of these phases being identified as ‘end of 2nd class’. While well-constructed standardised tests

are valid assessment tools, they are not the only assessment tools and have limited use with

young children other than for diagnostic or research purposes (Kostlenik, Soderman & Whiren,

2011). Authentic and developmentally appropriate assessment in the early years must include

the ‘innumerable and complex ways in which teachers appraise children’s learning in the

classroom...almost any type of assessment other than standardised tests and similar

developmental inventories and achievement tests’ (McAfee & Leong, 2007). The very real

danger that teachers will feel under pressure to alter their curriculum and teaching to fit the

standardised test/s exists and will result in a much narrower approach to assessment of young

children’s progress and achievements than is currently recommended in the literature. There is

a real danger that adopting the type of ‘standards-driven’ approach to improving literacy levels

among our children and young adults, which seems to underpin the Draft Plan, will lead

eventually to the ‘rewarding’ of successful schools and the ‘punishment’ of those deemed as

‘low achieving’, ‘performing poorly’ or ‘failing’. Such thinking has in the past resulted in such

practices Payment-by-Results, Streaming and League Tables. Do we want a return to these?

The Review(s) of the Primary School Curriculum (NCCA, 2005, 2008) highlight teachers’ requests

for support in developing their assessment practice. What is needed is strategic and purposeful

assessment systems that use ongoing, multiple methods for gathering information (Shepard,

Kagan, & Wurtz, 1998; NAEYC & NAECS/SDE, 2003). For these to be implemented, attention

must be given to several factors such as the need to identify a broad range of developmentally

appropriate strategies for authentic assessment and the need to provide well-designed CPD to

support teachers to use these strategies. Other factors include the extra time needed to engage

in a comprehensive assessment programme and the constraints of implementing such a

programme in classrooms where there are high adult-pupil ratios. Central to the philosophy of

developmentally appropriate practice in the early years is the concept of appropriateness – age,

individual and socio-cultural; a one-size-fits-all approach is seen as neither functional nor

desirable. Our assessment practice with young children must fit within this framework and

recognise individual variation in learners, differences in styles and rates of learning, a child’s

facility in English and stages of language acquisition (NAEYC, 2009).



3 IMPLEMENTATION FACTORS The reference on page 29 of the Draft Plan that “the proportion of schools in which weak

practice was evident in the teaching of English is significant” as reported in the Incidental

Inspection Findings A Report on the Teaching of English and Mathematics in the Primary School

(2010) is concerning, not only as a finding, but also because this finding has emerged

consistently throughout the past decade (e.g. Cregan, 2007; 2010; DES, 2005; Eivers et al., 2004;

NCCA, 2005). The relationship between practice and literacy development is central to reform

and warrants close scrutiny.

Research findings clearly signal an undisputed significance attaching to the teacher for effective

and successful practice leading to high quality learning by the student. Reviews by Santiago

(2002), Schacter and Thum (2004) and Eide et al. (2004) all suggest that the most important

school variable affecting student achievement is teacher quality. That teachers can make a

difference is undisputed (e.g. Mortimer et al., 1988; Tizard et al., 1988). Fullan (1993) states

that ‘there are no substitutes to having better teachers … We cannot have a learning society

without a learning profession of teachers’ (Fullan, 1993, p.131, in Coolahan, 2002, p.30). The

work of researchers such as Tough (1977), Wasik et al. (2006), and Wells and Mejia-Arauz

(2006) have demonstrated that teachers can make a dramatic difference to the language

development of children. Importantly, several studies have found that when oral activities

involving the use of ‘literate’ style language have been emphasised for children for whom this



type of language knowledge is not well developed, literacy standards have improved (Galda,

Shockley & Pelligrini, 1995; LeFevre & Senechal, 1999). Significant impacts such as these don’t

occur by chance, however. Fundamental to successful practice is the concept of teacher

knowledge, which it is agreed, is an important factor influencing teacher quality and effective

practice.

3.1 Teacher Knowledge

It is accepted that teacher knowledge is a key element in implementing and sustaining reform in

education worldwide (e.g. Earl et al., 2001). The work of Shulman (1987) refers to the

importance of ‘pedagogical content knowledge’ (in Poulson, 2003, p.55). Relevant findings (e.g.

Snow, 2003) indicate that teacher knowledge for the successful teaching of English comprises

an array of knowledge, notably

(e.g. Alexander, 2003; Corden, 2007; Poulson, 2003; Riley et al., 2007; Wysse& Jones, 2007).

A critical aspect of teacher knowledge is content knowledge, which in English appears to be

accessible by virtue of the fact that all teachers can speak the language, but complicated by the

level of technical knowledge required in what is an intuitive process (Snow, 2003, p.129). Much

attention is given to the significance of teacher knowledge in relation to oral language,

proposing that ‘despite its importance for learning, many teachers know much less about oral

language than they need to know’ (Wong-Fillmore & Snow, 2003, p.20). Among the specific

aspects of language knowledge required for oral language development are, for example:

knowledge of content

knowledge of pedagogy and also

knowledge of learners

knowledge of the curriculum, and

knowledge of one’s beliefs as practitioner



It is of concern that in a recent report (Cregan, 2010, p.84) teachers were found to be

particularly vague about the specific content of language learning needed in the school context.

Teacher knowledge of language skills which need to be developed in general, and in particular

knowledge of those language skills required for success in the school context was not

articulated clearly by many teachers. Teachers’ content knowledge of and ability to select key

instructional elements of literacy development such as phonological / phonemic awareness;

word identification; fluency; vocabulary; comprehension; writing and spelling within a balanced

programme of effective literacy instruction contributes significantly to the developmental

trajectory of the diverse needs of children within the primary school classroom.

Critically, of course, being able ‘to make the transition from personal knowledge and

understanding of a subject to the representation of that subject to their pupils’ (Corden, 2007,

p.116) is essential for effective teaching. A social-constructivist pedagogy, deriving from the

socio-cultural nature of learning, in which group and pair work around open-ended, interactive

discourse, involving exploratory and reflective learning, pupils taking risks, and sharing thoughts

and ideas is widely advocated (e.g. Barnes, 1992; Bruner, 1986; Wood, 1988; Corden, 2007;

Wells & Mejia-Arauz, 2006; Wysse& Jones, 2007).

The pedagogical implications of such an approach include increased emphasis on group work

and exploratory learning through talk, exemplified in discussion opportunities, exchange of

ideas, sharing information and problem-solving. This is in contrast to a transmission model of

teaching (e.g. Barnes, 1976), where teachers emphasise information transfer, determining what

is to be taught, transmitting information, and testing children to ensure that it has been

learned. It is characterised by the teacher initiating the discourse with a question to which the

pupil responds, followed by feedback in the form of an evaluation from the teacher (Mehan,

1979; Wells & Mejia-Arauz, 2006). This model of teaching has been found to disadvantage

those children whose out-of-school culture does not expose them to this pattern of interaction

(e.g. Heath, 1983; Tharp & Gallimore, 1988), provides no link between the patterns of everyday

knowledge of the basic units of language (phonemes, morphemes, words, sentences, discourse);

knowledge of processes of vocabulary acquisition and the importance of accurate definitions and explanations when introducing vocabulary;

awareness of dialects and an appreciation of their validity and complexity;

understanding of academic style of language – its existence, its significance, and its characteristics (Wong-Fillmore & Snow, 2003, pp.20-33).



language use and those more formal patterns required in the school context (Lemke, 1990), and

gives children minimal opportunity to voice their own ideas or to respond to the ideas of others

(Wood, 1992).

Unfortunately, In the Irish context, a review of teachers’ and children’s experiences of the

Primary Curriculum (English) by the National Council for Curriculum and Assessment (2005),

found that ‘whole class teaching was the organisational setting which teachers most frequently

reported using to teach the English curriculum, followed closely by individual work. Teachers

reported limited use of group and pair work with children in their classes’ (NCCA, Primary

Curriculum Review, Phase 1, 2005, p.2). This finding was replicated in Cregan (2010, p.85).

3.2 Teacher Professional Development

Recognising the centrality of teachers, the Draft Plan devotes considerable attention to the

question of improving the professional practice of teachers. A key point articulated in the Draft

Plan is the concept of the ‘teacher education continuum’ (p.17) encompassing Initial Teacher

Education, Induction and Continuing Professional Development. Recommendations to enhance

the professional practice of teachers are confined in large part to the first and third phase of the

teacher education continuum – ITE and CPD.

Significant emphasis is placed on the role of ITE to make a ‘critically important contribution to

the excellence of the teaching profession’ (p.15). While it is accepted that ITE has an important

role to play in teacher education, it is worth noting that ITE is the first phase of teacher

education, and that much professional development will occur also during the induction phase

and throughout the teacher’s career in the form of continuous professional development.

Points of note in the Draft Plan in relation to ITE and CPD include:

Students in Teacher Education Programmes are predominantly referred to as ‘teachers’

rather than ‘student teachers’.

Bullet points two and three (p.15) could more accurately be re-worded as follows:

ensuring that initial teacher education courses begin to develop the students’ knowledge,

understanding and ability to apply educational theory and practice effectively; and

It is critical that teacher knowledge is at the centre of reform to improve literacy standards

in the context of the Irish Education system, focussing particularly on teacher knowledge of

the content of the English curriculum, awareness of those pedagogical strategies and

approaches which research finds are most supportive in that context, and crucially,

knowledge of the learners such that teaching is not derived from a deficit perspective which

pathologises the child.



rigorously supporting young students during and at the end of the ITE phase to reach the

highest level proficiency possible as assessed through examinations and in professional

practice.

This wording acknowledges the potential for development at the ITE phase while

recognising that ITE is the first stage in a lifelong process.

The ‘requirement’ (p.15) for teachers to ‘undertake professional development courses

during their teaching careers’ is very much to be welcomed. The mandatory element of

continuous professional development appears to be lost however, as the Draft Plan

continues, citing the provision of ‘access to approved professional development courses’

(p.20), and removing the requirement element in this proposal.

Mandatory CPD is essential if the literacy skills of children are to be raised.

Identifying key topics for professional development of teachers (p.17) is very much to be

welcomed, and it is of note that such topics must include a ‘focus on the explicit

teaching of the structure and function of written and oral language’. Given findings in

relation to the nature, amount and significance of teacher knowledge for effective

teaching evident from research literature outlined earlier, greater elaboration of these

key topics is desirable.

The focus on ‘designing’ learning experiences of students (p.17) by teachers is very

much to be welcomed but is somewhat contradicted by a proposal to increase

dependence on a ‘proven’ programme for oral language development (p.35).

Actions which support the development of ‘reflective’ practitioners, capable of ‘ongoing

research’ are laudable, as is the proposal to increase the duration of the B.Ed

programme to four years (p.18). The re-configuration of the B.Ed programme needs

careful consideration to achieve the desired outcomes.

Conclusion

Despite vast resources being assigned to literacy development worldwide, significant numbers

of children continue to struggle. The response to the challenge on both sides of the Atlantic is

often “an unremitting focus on the mechanics of decoding, a nod to comprehension, and very

little consideration for the development of engagement with text” (Dombey, 2010, p.47). Such

a response, historically, has failed to deliver the much sought-after rise in literacy scores (e.g.

Earl et al., 2003; Ofsted, 2006). It is critical that our response: the Draft National Plan to

Improve Literacy and Numeracy in Schools learns from mistakes made elsewhere and capitalises

on an opportunity for real change. What is abundantly clear is that there is “No Quick Fix”

(Allington & Walmsley, 2007). Significant reform requires knowledge and understanding and

takes time. The recommendations which follow are aimed at facilitating such a process.



4 RECOMMENDATIONS

Arising from the considerations presented, the following recommendations in relation to the

vision for change in literacy as well as the implementation of that vision, are made:

To develop a rich, broad, comprehensive, inclusive definition of literacy which is used

consistently in dialogue to promote improvements in literacy levels

To use repeated findings from the many evaluations of literacy development carried out

over the past decade, since the introduction of the Primary School Curriculum, to

underpin decisions for future change

To undertake significant reform of the English curriculum. Such reform needs to take

cognisance of

o the significant body of evidence which points unequivocally to best practice

o repeated calls from teachers for clarity and accessibility of curriculum content

o the opportunity and potential provided for rich literacy development across all

curricular areas



o the need for clarification of the impact of Aistear and its place in the nature and sequence of curricular reform in the early years of primary school

To set in train a strategic deployment of resources for all learners at risk, which derives

from needs-based evidence. This to include

Ongoing, adequate support for schools, such that knowledgeable teachers deliver

effective literacy instruction, with access to

A wide range of appropriate teaching and learning resources, and

Latitude at school level to increase time for the development of literacy skills, both

during literacy instruction time, and across all curricular areas and to ensure that

Schools are facilitated to effect empowered partnership with parents and the

community for enhanced proficiency in children’s literacy skills

To establish assessment practices which lead to real improvements in literacy levels.

We must learn from experiences in other jurisdictions so that the regressive practice of

‘teaching to the test’ is not promoted in the Irish Education system, or that the ‘Schools

like Ours’ proposal does not lead to the establishment of league tables or the

suppression of potential development of children in certain contexts. Rather, it is

recommended to establish a practice of effective assessment

both formative and summative, which includes

a variety of assessment tools

to target a range of literacy competencies

carried out by informed practitioners

designed to support all children to achieve maximum potential.

In order to implement the vision for change presented, it is recommended that a focus which

supports the ongoing development of increased teacher knowledge through teacher

education at all stages in the continuum is established. To this end it is important that:

All parties involved in the promotion of literacy development in Initial Teacher

Education consider the content of the proposed four-year B.Ed and two-year Graduate

Diploma Programmes, with a view to maximising student-teacher engagement with

research, content and pedagogy of effective literacy teaching across a range of contexts.

Such consideration should take account, among others, of the need for

Increased time for the pedagogy of English, both during English and across other

curricular areas

reduced class sizes to facilitate understanding, reflection and engagement with

research

significant experience of professional practice in a range of contexts



Continuous professional development, both at the Induction phase, and throughout In-

Career development, is undertaken as a matter of priority. Such professional

development needs to be

a requirement not an option

strategically targeted to expand the currency of teacher knowledge, in line with the

most up-to-date research findings

strongly focussed on the content as well as the pedagogy of the English curriculum as

well as to

meet teachers’ and learners’ needs, including the needs of English Language

Learners, and children with Special Education needs, and

undertaken periodically throughout a teaching career, with a

focus which takes particular account of the importance of supporting parent

involvement in the process of literacy teaching.



References

Afflerbach, P. (2007) Understanding and Using Reading Assessment K-12. Newark, DE:

International Reading Association.

Afflerbach, P., Pearson, P.D. and Paris, S. G. (2008) ‘Clarifying differences between reading skills and reading strategies’, The Reading Teacher, 61, 364 – 373.

Alexander, R. (2003) ‘Oracy, literacy and pedagogy: international perspective’ in Bearne, E.,

Dombey, H. & Grainger, T., eds, Classroom Interactions in Literacy, Open University Press.

pp.23-35.

Allington, R.L. & Walmsley, S.A., eds. (2007) No Quick Fix: Rethinking Literacy Programs in

America’s Elementary Schools. New York: Teachers College Press and Newark DE: International

Reading Association.

Baker, L., Scher, D. and Mackler, K. (1997) ‘Home and family influences on motivations to read’,

Educational Psychologist, 32, 69-82.

Barnes, D. (1976) From Communication to Curriculum. Harmondsworth: Penguin.

Barnes, D. (1992) ‘The role of talk in learning’, in K. Norman, ed., Thinking Voices: The Work of

the National Oracy Project. London: Hodder & Stoughton.

Block, C.C, and Duffy, G.G. (2008) ‘Research on teaching comprehension: Where we’ve been and where we’re going’ in Block, C. C. & Parris, S. R. eds., Comprehension Instruction: Research-Based Best Practices, 2nd ed, New York: Guilford, 19-37. Block, C.C. and Pressley, M., eds., (2007) Comprehension Instruction: Research Based Best

Practices, New York: Guilford Press.

Bond, G.L. and Dykstra, R. (1967) ‘The co-operative research programme on first-grade reading

instruction’, Reading Research Quarterly, 4, 11, pp.5-42.

Bowyer-Crane, C., Snowling, M., Duff, F., Fieldsend, E., Carroll, J., Miles, J., Gotz, K., and Hulme,

C. (2008) ‘Improving early language and literacy skills: Differential effects of an oral language

versus a phonology with reading intervention’, Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry

49(4), 422-432.

Bradley, D.H., (2001) ‘Help students who struggle with writing become better writers’, in

Intervention in School and Clinic, 37(2), 118-123.

Bredekamp, S. and Copple, C. (1997) Developmentally Appropriate Practice In Early Childhood Programs. Washington, D.C.: NAEYC.



Bruner, J. (1986) Actual Minds, Possible Worlds, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Catts, H.W. and Kamhi, A.G., eds., (1999) Language and Reading Disabilities, Boston, MA: Allyn

and Bacon.

Collins-Block, C. and Pressley, M. (2002) Comprehension Instruction Research-Based Best Practices. NewYork: The Guilford Press. Collins-Block,C. and Parris, S.R. (2008) Comprehension Instruction: Research-Based Best Practices, 2nd edition, New York: The Guildford Press. Coolahan, J. (2002) ‘Teacher education and the teaching career in an era of lifelong learning’

OECD Education Working Papers No. 2, OECD Publishing. Doi:10.1787/226408628504.

Cook-Gumperz, J., Ed., (2006) The Social Construction of Literacy, 2nd Edition, Cambridge

University Press.

Corden, R. (2007) Literacy and Learning Through Talk, Open University Press: McGraw-Hill

Education.

Cregan, A. (2010) From Policy to Practice: The Oral Language Challenge for Teachers,

Unpublished report for the Department of Education and Skills: Dublin. July 2010.

Cregan, A. (2007) From Difference to Disadvantage: Sociolinguistic Perspectives on the Context

of Schooling in Ireland. Research Working Paper. Combat Poverty Agency. June 2007.

www.combatpoverty.ie/publication/workingpapers/2007-03WPTalkingPosh.pdf

Cregan, A. (2008). Sociolinguistic Perspectives on the Context of Schooling in Ireland (Vol.2):

Parent Perspectives. Research Working Paper. Combat Poverty Agency. August 2008.

DeBaryshe, B.D. (1995) ‘Maternal Belief Systems: Linchpin in the home reading process’,

Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 16, 1-20.

DES, (2005) An Evaluation of Curriculum Implementation in Primary Schools – English,

Mathematics, and Visual Arts, Department of Education and Science. Government

Publications, Dublin.

DES, (2005) Primary School Curriculum, English, Additional Support Materials. Department of

Education and Science, Government Publications, Dublin.

DES, (2010) Incidental Inspection Findings 2010. A Report on the Teaching and Learning of

English and Mathematics in Primary School. Inspectorate Evaluation Studies: Dublin.

DES, (2005) Literacy and Numeracy in Disadvantaged Schools: Challenges for Teachers and

Learners. An Evaluation by the Inspectorate of the Department of Education and Science.

Department of Education and Science. Government Publications, Dublin.

http://www.combatpoverty.ie/publication/workingpapers/2007-03WPTalkingPosh.pdf



Dickinson, D. and Moreton, J. (1991) Predicting Specific Kindergarten Literacy Skills From Three-

year-olds’ Preschool Experience. Paper presented at the biennial meetings of the Society for

Research in Child Development, Seattle.

Dickinson, D.K. and Sprague, K.E. (2002) ‘The nature and impact of early childhood care

environments on the language and early literacy development of children from low-income

families’, in Neuman, S.B. & Dickinson, D.K., eds., Handbook of Early Literacy Research, London:

The Guilford Press.

Dickenson, D., McCabe, A., Anastasopoulos, L., Peisner-Feinberg, E. and Poe, M. (2003) ‘The

comprehensive language approach to early literacy: The interrelationships among vocabulary,

phonological sensitivity, and print knowledge among pre-school aged children’, Journal of

Educational Psychology, 95(3), 465-481.

Dombey, H. (2010) ‘Review: No quick fix. Rethinking literacy programs in America’s elementary

schools’, Literacy 44,(1), 47.

Duke, N.K., Purcell-Gates, V., Hall, L.A. and Tower, C. (2006) ‘Authentic literacy activities for

developing comprehension and writing’, The Reading Teacher, 60(4), 344-355.

Duke, N.K. and Pearson, P.D., (2002), ‘Effective practices for developing reading’, in A.E Farstrup and S.J.Samuels, eds, What Research Has To Say About Reading Instruction, 3rd edition, Newark: International Reading Association. Duncan, G.J. and Brooks-Gunn, J. (2000) ‘Family poverty, welfare reform and child

development’ Child Development, 71,188-196.

Duncan Owens, D. (2010) ‘Commercial reading programmes as the solution for children living in

poverty’, Literacy, 44(3), 112-121.

Earl, L., Levin, B., Leithwood, K. et al. (2001) Watching and Learning 2: OISE/UT Evaluation of

the Implementation of the National Literacy and Numeracy Strategies. Toronto: University of

Toronto, Ontario Institute for Studies in Education.

Earl, L., Levin, B., Leithwood, K. et al. (2003) Watching and Learning 3: OISE/UT Evaluation of

the Implementation of the National Literacy and Numeracy Strategies. Third and final report.

Toronto: University of Toronto, Ontario Institute for Studies in Education.

Eide, E., Goldhaber, D. and Brewer, D. (2004) ‘The teacher labour market and teacher quality’,

Oxford Review of Economic Policy 20(2), 230-244.

Eivers, E., Shiel, G., and Shortt, F. (2004) Reading Literacy in Disadvantaged Primary Schools.

Dublin: Educational Research Centre.

Eivers, E., S. Close, G. Shiel, D. Millar, A. Clerkin, L. Gilleece and J. Kiniry, (2010) The 2009 National Assessments of Mathematics and English Reading, Dublin: Stationary Office.



Epstein, J. (1986) ‘Parents’ reactions to teacher practices of parent involvement’, The

Elementary School Journal, 86(3), 277-294.

Evers, A.J., Lang, L.F. and Smith, S.V. (2009) ‘An ABC literacy journey: Anchoring in texts, bridging language and creating stories’, The Reading Teacher, 62(6), 461–470.

Fan, X. and Chen, M. (2001) ‘Parental involvement and students’ academic achievement: A

meta-analysis’ Educational Psychology Review, 13(1), 1-22.

Farstrup, A.E. and Samuels, S.J. (2002) What Research Has to Say About Reading Instruction, Newark, DE: International Reading Association. Fullan, M. (1993) Change Forces: Probing the Depths of Educational Reform. New York: Falmer.

Galda, L., Shockley, B., and Pellegrini, A.D. (1995) Talking to Read and Write: Opportunities for Literate Talk in One Primary Classroom. Instructional Resource No.12. National Reading Research Center, Athens GA. ED 387 781. Gambrell, L., Mandel-Morrow,L. and Pressley, M. eds. (2007) Best Practices in Literacy Instruction, 3rd ed., New York: Guilford Press. Gill, S., (2008) ‘The comprehension matrix: A tool for designing comprehension instruction’, The Reading Teacher, 62(2), 106–113. Gleeson, M., Courtney, A., Bowe, T. et.al. (2010) ‘Building bridges of understanding: Comprehension taught not caught’. In: T. Concannon-Gibney, A. Kelly and K. Willoughby. eds. Literacy in the 21st Century: Perspectives, Challenges and Transformations, Dublin: Reading Association of Ireland. pp. 75-87. Gleeson, M. (2005) Supporting the Emergent Reader Through Research-Based Integrated Early Literacy Instruction. In: E. Kennedy and T. Hickey eds. Learning to Read and Reading to Learn. Dublin: Reading Association of Ireland. pp. 24-37. Hall, K. (2003) Listening to Stephen Read: Multiple Perspectives on Literacy. Buckingham.

Hart, B. (2000) ‘A natural history of early language Experience’, Topics in Early Childhood

Special Education, 20(1), 28-32.

Hashima, P.Y. and Amato, P.R. (1994) ‘Poverty, social support and parental behavior’, Child

Development, 65, 394-403.

Heath, S.B. (1983) Ways with Words, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Heller, M.F. (1999), Reading-Writing Connections: From Theory to Practice, Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates



Henderson, A.T. and Mapp, K. (2002) A New Wave of Evidence. The Impact of School, Family,

and Community Connections on Student Achievement. Annual Synthesis, 2002. National Center

for Family and Community Connections with Schools, Southwest Educational Development

Laboratory. Austin, Texas.

IRA & NAEYC. (1998) ‘Learning to read and write: Developmentally appropriate practices for young children’, A joint position statement of the International Reading Association (IRA) and the National Association for the Education of Young Children (NAEYC). Washington, DC: NAEYC. Ireland, Department of Education and Science. (1999a). English Curriculum, Dublin: Stationery Office. Ireland, Department of Education and Science. (1999b). English Language: Teacher Guidelines, Dublin: Stationery Office. Israel, S. and Duffy, G. (2009) Handbook of Research on Reading Comprehension, New York: Routledge. Jeynes, W.H. (2003) ‘A meta-analysis: The effects of parental involvement on minority

children’s academic achievement’, Education and Urban Society, 35(2), 202-218.

Juel, C. Griffith, P.L. and Gough, P.B. (1986) ‘Acquisition of literacy: A longitudinal study of

children in first and second grade’, Journal of Education Psychology, 78, 243-255.

Kostelnik, M.J., Soderman, S.K. and Whiren, A.P. (2011) Developmentally Appropriate Curriculum: Best Practices in Early Childhood Education, 5th edition, Boston: Pearson education. Lefevre, J. and Senechal, M. (1999) ‘The relations among home-literacy factore, language and

early literacy skills, and reading acquisition’, in M.A. Evans (Chair), Home Literacy Practices:

Precursors, Dimensions, and Outcomes in the Early School Years, Symposium presented at the

biennial meetings of the Society for Research in Child Development, Albuquerque, NM.

Lemke, J.L. (1990) Talking Science: Language, Learning and Values, Norwood, NJ: Ablex.

Lerner, J.W. and Kline, F. (2006) Learning Disabilities and Related Disorders: Characteristics and

Teaching Strategies, New York: Houghton Mifflin.

Lerner, J.W. (2000) Learning Disabilities: Theories, Diagnosis and Teaching Strategies, New York:

Houghton Mifflin.

Locke, A., Ginsborg, J. and Peers, I. (2002) ‘Development and disadvantage: implications for the

early years and beyond’, International Journal of Language and Communication Disorders,

37(1), 3-15.

Lonigan, C.J. and Whitehurst, G.J. (1998) ‘Examination of the relative efficacy of parent and

teacher involvement in a shared reading intervention for preschool children from low-income

backgrounds’, Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 13, 263-290.



Lynch, J., Anderson, J., Anderson, A. and Shapiro, J. (2006) ‘Parents’ beliefs about young

children’s literacy development and parents’ literacy behaviors’, Reading Psychology, 27, 1-20.

Mantzicopoulos, P.Y. (1997) ‘The relationship of family variables to Headstart children’s

preacademic competence’, Early Childhood Development and Care, 8, 357-375.

McAfee, O., and Leong, D. J. (2007) Assessing and Guiding Young Children’s Development and Learning, New York: Pearson Education. Mc Kenna, M. and Dougherty Stahl, K. (2009) Assessment for Reading Instruction, 2nd edition, New York: The Guildford Press. Mehan, H. (1979) Learning Lessons: Social Organization in the Classroom, Cambridge, MA. Harvard University Press

Mistry, R.S., Biesanz, J.C., Taylor, L.C., Burchinal, M. and Cox, M.J. (2004) ‘Family income and its

relation to preschool children’s adjustment for families in the NICHD study of early childcare’,

Developmental Psychology, 4, 727-745.

Mortimer, P., Sammonds, P., Stoll, L., Lewis, D., and Ecob, R. (1988) School Matters, Wells:

Open Books.

Muter, V., Hulme, C., Snowling, M.J., and Stevenson, J. (2004) ‘Phonemes, rimes, vocabulary

and grammatical skills as foundations of early reading development: Evidence from a

longitudinal study’, Developmental Psychology 40, 665-681.

NAEYC & NAECS/SDE. (2003) Early Childhood Curriculum, Assessment and Program Evaluation. Retrieved February 2, 2011, from NAEYC: www.naeyc.org NAEYC. (2009) Developmentally Appropriate Practice in Early Childhood Programs Serving Children from Birth through Age 8. Retrieved February 2, 2011, from NAEYC: www.naeyc.org NCCA (2005) Primary Curriculum Review. Phase 1, English, Visual Arts, Mathematics. NCCA:

Merrion Square, Dublin.

NCCA (2007) Assessment in the Primary School Curriculum: Guidelines for Schools. Dublin: NCCA.

NCCA (2009) Aistear: The Early Childhood Curriculum Framework. Dublin: NCCA.

NCCA (2009). Aistear: The Early Childhood Curriculum Framework and the Primary School Curriculum. Retrieved February 2, 2011, from NCCA: www.ncca.ie

NCCA (2010) Developments in the Curriculum for Primary Schools: Report for the Joint

Committee on Education and Skills, Dublin: NCCA.

NESF (2009) Child Literacy and Social Inclusion: Implementation Issues, National Economic &

Social Forum. Report 39. November.

http://www.naeyc.org/

http://www.naeyc.org/

http://www.ncca.ie/



NWP (National Writing Project) and NAGIN, C. (2003) Because Writing Matters: Improving

Student Writing in Our Schools. California: Jossey – Bass.

Ofsted (2006) Ofsted Departmental Report: Better Education and Care Through Effective

Inspection and Regulation, London: The Stationery Office.

Olson, D.R. (1977) ‘From utterance to text: The bias of language in speech and writing’, Harvard

Educational Review, 47(3), 257-281.

Pahl, K. and Rowsell, J. (2005) Literacy and Education: Understanding the New Literacy Studies

in the Classroom, London: Paul Chapman Publishing.

Pellegriini, A.D. (2002) ‘Some theoretical and methodological considerations in studying literacy

in social context’ , in Neuman, S.B. & Dickinson, D.K., eds., Handbook of Early Literacy Research,

London: The Guilford Press, 54-65.

Pellegrini, A.D. and Galda, L. (1998) The Development of School-Based Literacy: A Social

Ecological Perspective. London: Routledge.

Pressley, M. (2006) Reading Instruction That Works: The Case for Balanced Teaching, 3rd edition,

New York: Guilford Press.

Poulson, L. (2003) ‘The subject of literacy: what kind of knowledge is needed to teach literacy

successfully?’ in Bearne, E., Dombey, H. & Grainger, T., eds., Classroom Interactions in Literacy.

Open University Press.

Purcell-Gates, V. (2008) Constructions of Deficit: Families and Children on the Margins. Paper

presented at AERA Annual Meeting.

Raphael, T. E., George, M, Weber, C. M. and Niles, A (2009. ‘Approaches to teaching reading

comprehension’, in: Israel, S. E. and Duffy, G. G. eds., Handbook of Research on Reading

Comprehension, New York: Routledge, 449- 469.

Rescorla, C. andAlley, A. (2001) ‘Validation of the Language Development Survey(LDS): A parent

report tool for identifying language delay in toddlers’, Journal of Speech, Language and Hearing

Research, 44, 434-445.

Resnick, L.B. and Hampton, S. (2009) Reading and Writing Grade by Grade, 2nd edition, Newark,

DE: International Reading Association.

Riley, J. and Burrell, A. (2007) ‘assessing children’s oral storytelling in their first year of school’,

International Journal of Early Years Education, 15(2), 181-196.

Samuels, S.J. and Farstrup, A. E. (2006) What Research Has to Say About Fluency Instruction,

Newark, DE: International Reading Association.



Santiago,P. (2002) ‘Teacher demand and supply: Improving teacher quality and addressing

teacher shortages’, OECD Education Working Paper No.1, OECD Paris. Available from

www.oecd.org/eduworkingpaper

Schacter, J. and Thum, Y. (2004) ‘Paying for high and low quality teaching’, Economics of

Education Review 23,411-430.

Shepard, L., Kagan, S., and Wurtz, E. (1998) Principles and Recommendations for Early Childhood

Assessments, Washington, DC: National Education Goals Panel.

Shiel, G. and Murphy, R. (2000) Drumcondra English Profiles: A Framework for Assessing Oral

Language, Reading and Writing in Primary Schools. Dublin: Educational Research Centre, St.

Patrick's College.

Shulman, L.S. (1987) ‘Knowledge and teaching: Foundations of the new reform’, Harvard

Educational Review, 57(1): 1-22.

Snow, C.E. (1983) ‘Literacy and language’, Harvard Educational Review, 53, 165-189.Snow,

C. (2003) ‘Epilogue’, in Temple Adger, C., Snow, C. and ChristEvan, D., eds., What Teachers

Need to Know about Language, Center for Applied Linguistics, Washington, DC: Carnegie

Corporation of New York, NY, 123-130.

Snow, C.E., Burns, M.S., and Griffin, P. (1998) Preventing Reading Difficulties in Young Children.

Washington DC: National Academy Press.

Tharp, R. and Gallimore, R. (1988) Rousing Minds to Life, New York: Cambridge University

Press.

Tizard, B., Blatchford, D., Burke, J., Farquar, C. and Plewis, I. (1988) Young Children at School in

the Inner City. Hove: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Tough, J. (1977) Talking and Learning: A Guide to Fostering Communication Skills in Nursery and

Infant Schools, London: Ward Lock.

Wasik, B.A., Bond, M.A. and Hindman, A. (2006) ‘The effects of a language and literacy

intervention on head start children and teachers’, Journal of Educational Psychology 98(1), 63-

74.

Wells, G. and Mejia- Arauz, R. (2006) ‘Toward dialogue in the classroom: Learning and teaching

through inquiry’, Journal of the Learning Sciences, 15(3), 379-428.

West. A., Noden, P., Edge, A. and David, M. (1998) ‘Parental involvement in education in and

out of school’, The British Educational Research Journal, 24(4), Families and Education, 461-

484.

http://www.oecd.org/eduworkingpaper



G.J. (1996) ‘Language processes in context:

Language learning in children reared in

poverty’, in L.B. Adamson & M.A.

Romski, eds., Research on

Communication and Language

Disorders: Contribution to Theories of

Language Development. Baltimore, MD:

Brookes.

Wiegel, D., Martin, S. and Bennett, K.

(2006) ‘Contributions of the home

literacy environment to preschool-aged

children’s emerging literacy and

language skills’, Early Child

Development and Care, 176, (3 & 4),

357-378.

Wood, D. (1988) How Children Talk and

Learn. Oxford: Blackwell.

Wood, D. (1992) ‘Teaching talk’, in K.

Norman, ed., Thinking Voices: The Work

of the National Oracy Project, London: Hodder & Stoughton for the National Curriculum

Council, 203-214.

Wong Fillmore, L. and Snow, C. (2003) ‘What teachers need to know about language’, in

Temple Adger, C., Snow, C. and ChristEvan, D., eds., What Teachers Need to Know About

Language, Center for Applied Linguistics, Washington, DC: Carnegie Corporation of New York,

NY., 7-54.

Wyse, D. and Jones, R. (2007) Teaching English, Language and Literacy. London: Routledge-

Falmer.

Mathematics Education

Dr. Aisling Leavy, Dr. Mairéad Hourigan,

Dr. John O’Shea, Áine McMahon

Mary Immaculate

College




Introduction

As mathematics educators we welcome the recent spotlight placed on the teaching and

learning of mathematics arising from publication of Better Literacy and Numeracy for Children

and Young People: A National Plan to Improve Literacy and Numeracy in Schools. Recent

national and international assessments have shown that there has been no significant

improvement in Irish primary students’ attainment in mathematics. Indeed deficits in key skills

such as problem solving have been identified1. Furthermore, mathematics is a core skill

necessary to participate fully in society. For example, mathematics is necessary in everyday

work/tasks from shopping to engineering, medicine to farming. Mathematics education has

been referred to as an “objective judge” (Volmink 1994) and has lead to stratification in

educational circles of those who possess mathematical knowledge and those who don’t. In

some sense, then, mathematics has become a gatekeeper that dictates participation in certain

elements of society, in particular in terms of access to 3rd level study. This importance of

mathematics is reiterated by Delaney (2010:4) when he notes that recent policy documents

acknowledge ‘the importance of mathematics in a knowledge society.’ Therefore, a focus on

improving the teaching and learning of mathematics will have societal benefits. Furthermore,

the Primary School Mathematics Curriculum (1999) recognises that mathematics is a discipline

in its own right and children should be allowed to experience this discipline in an enjoyable,

fascinating and challenging manner. A renewed focus on teaching and learning strategies that

target core literacies in mathematics, in addition to instructional practices, will foster an

intellectual curiosity in mathematics.

It is our belief that a carefully designed and research-informed response, that takes into

account the experiences of stakeholders in mathematics education (for example, teachers and

mathematics educators), has the potential to revitalise the mathematics education components

of Initial Teacher Education (ITE), induction, and Continuing Professional Development (CPD)

programmes and in turn equip teachers with the critical and complex skills necessary to support

the development of mathematically literate students.

The targeting of core skills together with a concomitant focus on problem solving provides

sufficient evidence that, contrary to general opinion, the report does not endorse a back to

basics approach to mathematics education. We make this observation based on a number of

factors. Firstly, the report’s definition of numeracy as ‘the capacity confidence and disposition

to use mathematics to meet the demands of learning, school, home, work, community and civic

life’ (DES, 2010:9) incorporates reference to the capacity to deal effectively with the

quantitative aspects of life. This definition is closely aligned with the definition of mathematical

literacy as defined by the OECD (2004) which is ‘an individual’s capacity to identify and

understand the role that mathematics plays in the world, to make well founded judgements

and to use and engage with mathematics in ways that meet the needs of that individual’s life as

a constructive, concerned and reflective citizen’. Secondly, the report identifies the radical 1 This will be explored in depth in section 1 of our response



nature of change at second level in relation to the teaching of mathematics referencing the

project maths initiative. The DES goes on to suggest other system wide measures are needed to

improve students’ engagement with mathematics and the development of their numeracy

skills. Project maths is problem focussed and similar principles can be applied at primary level.

Finally, the report also highlights ‘contemporary research into the teaching of mathematics

shows the importance of a problem solving approach based on real life contexts’ (DES, 2010:

29). It acknowledges that much current practice in the primary school does not reflect this.

However the references to a relentless focus on progress and focussed priority on numeracy do

not provide adequate guidance regarding what will be measured and what will be the focus of

change that will stimulate improved performance in mathematics. A research-driven and needs-

based conceptual framework focusing on mathematics education needs to be communicated;

this framework should motivate and inform decisions regarding the alignment of instruction,

curriculum and assessment. Measuring higher order mathematical understanding requires the

development and use of tasks different to that commonly found in standardized tests (more

akin to those found in PISA). Change however, must begin at the classroom level. The report

provides insufficient detail regarding the classroom-level practices that support the

development of higher order mathematical reasoning and how these are situated within a

theoretical framework from which teachers can refer to when making judgements about

classroom practices. For example, there are few if any references to constructivist theories, the

socio-cultural dimensions of mathematics learning, and the situated nature of that learning

within our classrooms and the communities from which children come. There is also an absence

of any critique of the Primary School Mathematics Curriculum and the role that this curriculum,

combined with a reliance on textbooks, contributes to patterns of achievement within the

primary school.

The aspects of mathematics emphasised, albeit briefly, in the report are critical understandings

highlighted by international research. In our response, we will refer to evidence from research

studies in mathematics education that provide the backdrop to the recommendations we

propose.



Our response is organised as follows:

1. Performance of Irish Children in National and International Assessments of Mathematics. In the first section we present data to support the argument that there is significant room for improvement in Irish students’ performance on mathematical assessments.

2. Teacher Knowledge: What types of knowledge are required to teach mathematics? We outline the types of knowledge teachers draw from when teaching mathematics. We do this to illuminate the complexity of mathematics education for those who believe that mathematics pedagogy consists of little more than a ‘ragbag’ of skills and procedures.

3. The role of Mathematics in the preparation of teachers. This section examines the literature pertaining to the role played by mathematics in the preparation of teachers. We refer to the approach taken by other universities to address the mathematics/mathematics education preparation of pre-service primary teachers.

4. The case of ITE at Mary Immaculate College (MIC).

This section provides an overview of the challenges faced in providing mathematics

education in ITE (and specifically in the context of MIC). We report on published research

carried out over the past decade examining the mathematical content knowledge of our

entry level pre-service teachers and identify other factors that present obstacles to the

provision of best practices in mathematics education.

5. Additional important issues

We discuss important issues highlighted in the report that relate to the agenda for

mathematics teaching and learning. These issues include: the role of the (visual and

performing) arts in primary education, assessment in the primary school, and catering

for students with special needs.

6. Recommendations

We present our recommendations in response to the report.



Section 1: Performance of Irish Children in National and

International Assessments of Mathematics

We welcome the acknowledgement from the draft report that areas in mathematics (e.g.

problem solving, measures and estimation) need improvement. We present data and report on

research supporting the argument that the teaching and learning of mathematics requires

immediate attention. The relevant studies provide evidence that there is substantial room for

improvement in the mathematical literacy of Irish children.

National Assessments of Mathematics Achievement (NA) Dating back to 1977, a series of national assessments have been conducted in primary

mathematics. National assessments are conducted by the Educational Research Centre, Dublin

and they focus on children at various levels both primary and post-primary. These assessments

have consistently shown that Irish primary students perform well in areas such as

understanding and recalling basic terminology, facts, and algorithms, but not as well in

problem-solving and engaging in mathematical reasoning (Shiel and Kelly 2001; Surgenor, Shiel,

Close and Millar, 2006). These conclusions are similar to the findings of TIMSS (Mullis, Martin,

Beaton, Gonzalez, Kelly and Smith, 1997).

Early assessments involving students in second, fourth and fifth classes focussed on number,

and these indicated that pupils were strongest in dealing with operations with whole numbers,

and weakest in the area of problem-solving. This is consistent with current research examining

the achievements of primary pupils in Irish classrooms (Shiel and Kelly, 2001; Surgenor et al.

20062). Evidently, teachers place less emphasis on the teaching of problem solving than on the

teaching of number (Shiel and Kelly 2001; Surgenor et al. 2006). Research indicates that little

has changed in terms of the nature of Irish pupils’ mathematical strengths and weaknesses

since the implementation of the Primary School Mathematics Curriculum (1999). While

acknowledging significant improvements in the strands of Data and Shape and Space when

comparing findings of the national assessments (Shiel and Kelly 2001; Surgenor, et al 2006),

2 The following are two types of problems that students perform poorly on in recent national assessments in

mathematical achievements (Surgenor, et al. 2006).

a) The time in Hong Kong is 8 hours ahead of Dublin. For example, mid-day in Dublin is 20.00 in Hong Kong. Sheila left Dublin for Hong Kong at 08:00. Her trip time was 13 hours. What was the local time in Hong Kong when she arrived?

b) 126 pupils in a school are going on a trip to the museum. A coach holds 48 children. A minibus holds 16. Which of these should the school hire so that there are as few empty seats as possible?

A. 2 coaches B. 2 coaches and 1 minibus C. 2 coaches and 2 minibuses D. 3 coaches



there are a number of reasons to play these findings down. Many of the items in which

improvements were apparent in the Shape and Space strand tested lower order thinking skills

(Surgenor et al. 2006). Another important factor is that pupils taking the NA (1999) test had no

exposure to the strand unit of Chance unlike pupils completing the NA (2004) version. This may

have contributed to the observed improvement in the Data component.

Weaknesses which persist include limited ability on items requiring higher order thinking skills

particularly in real world contexts (Surgenor et al. 2006; Eivers et al. 2007). While Irish pupils

demonstrate an ability to demonstrate procedural knowledge in familiar contexts, their ability

to use their knowledge in new and/or realistic contexts has been found wanting. There is also

consensus that the high achievers in the Irish context are not being adequately challenged.

The 2009 National Assessments of Mathematics and English Reading changed target grades to

2nd and 6th Classes. Five process skills were assessed: Understand and Recall, Implement,

Integrate and Connect, Reason, and Apply and Problem-Solve. In the National Assessment of

Mathematics the overall mean percent correct scores were 57% for Second Class and 55% for

Sixth Class. The figure below, from the National Assessment of Mathematics 2009 (Eivers, Close,

Shiel, Millar, Clerkin, Gilleece & Kiniry 2010, 31) highlights that both Second and Sixth Class

children performed least well in questions involving applying and problem-solving. These

findings suggest that the strengths and weakness of Irish students has remained stable across

assessments despite the roll out of the Primary School Mathematics Curriculum.

Figure 1: Mean percent correct score, by maths process skill, Second and Sixth classes (Eivers et al. 2010: 31,

used with permission)

A focus on the teaching of mathematical problem-solving in Ireland is timely and due in no small

part to the conclusions drawn by Shiel and Kelly (2001), Surgenor et al. (2006) and Eivers et al.

(2010). These national assessments make for worrying reading particularly for those who

emphasise the need for a focus on higher level mathematical processes such as problem-

solving. The reports found students performed least well when engaging in mathematical



reasoning, analysing, solving problems, and evaluating solutions, and understanding and making

connections between mathematical concepts and processes. Such findings reinforce the

reportage on the implemented curriculum and highlight the shortcomings of practice which

prioritises teacher–led didactic teaching over opportunities for children to work collaboratively

to solve realistic meaningful problems.

Third International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS) 3 The Third International Mathematics and Science Study (1995) was an international assessment

of the mathematics and science knowledge of students at five grade levels in over forty

countries. The study focussed on two age groups, 9-year-old primary students and 13-year-old

secondary students. The mean scores of students on the mathematical ability tests showed

that fourth class Irish pupils ranked well above the OECD average but at post-primary level, Irish

pupils ranked within the OECD average (Mullis et al. 1997). These TIMSS (1995) figures highlight

a decrease in the level of mathematical ‘ability’ between the senior grades at primary level and

the initial grades at post-primary level. We should remember that during the senior grades at

primary level, and the initial years at post-primary level, instruction requires students to be

competent in using higher level skills such as analysis, prediction, estimation and evaluation and

that all the research discussed below indicates Irish students perform less well in these areas

compared to areas involving lower level skills involving simple contexts. The difficulties in

relation to problem solving have been alluded to in both the published report (DES 2010) and in

the more detailed National Assessment of Mathematics and Reading report (Eivers et al. 2010).

The focus on performance in national assessments and the comparisons made following the

publication of outcomes on international assessments, such as in TIMSS (1995), often lead to

debate about the degree to which students can explain the mathematical thinking and

reasoning that informs their responses. Data revealed by TIMSS (1995) is particularly

interesting here. Cognisant of the fact that this was prior to the introduction of the Primary

School Curriculum (Government of Ireland, 1999a; 1999b), TIMSS (1995) data highlights that

fewer than 40 per cent of fourth class students in Ireland had teachers who felt it was

important to think creatively, with 52 per cent of students being required to practice

computational skills during most lessons (Mullis et al. 1997). This is a particularly important

statistic as an emphasis on creativity and experimentation is critical to the problem solving

process.

Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) The Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA), coordinated by the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), tests and compares school children's performance across 57 countries. PISA assesses 15-year-old students’ performance on ‘real-life’ tasks considered relevant for effective participation in adult society and for life-long learning. This is reflected in the definition of mathematical literacy which underpins the PISA

3 Ireland did not participate in TIMSS 1999, 2003, or 2007.



assessments. The OECD (2003: 156) defines mathematical literacy as ‘an individual’s capacity to identify and understand the role that mathematics plays in the world, to make well-founded judgments and to use and engage with mathematics in ways that meet the needs of that individual’s life as a constructive, concerned and reflective citizen’. This reflects the importance of problem-solving skills and constructivist philosophy: the individual must be able to utilise all mathematical skills and concepts acquired in the mathematics classroom in real-life situations and understand the use of such mathematical skills and concepts. Student achievement in PISA is categorised at the various levels illustrated in table 1. Tasks at Level 1 are associated with a minimum level of mathematics achievement, such as the ability to recall basic multiplication and division facts, the ability to read and interpret simple graphs, charts, scales and diagrams, and the ability to solve simple problems involving multiplication and division. Levels 2 and 3 are associated with students who have demonstrated a moderate level of mathematics achievement. At this level, students are engaged in basic reasoning, using problem-solving strategies, and linking symbolic structures to real world situations. At the upper end of the scale, at levels 5 and 6, students have an advanced level of mathematics achievement. Students at this level can develop their own novel approaches to problem solving, can select, compare and evaluate solution methods for solving problems, can communicate their mathematical ideas, and can discuss and compare their own mathematics with the mathematics of others. The following table, adapted from Eivers, Shiel and Cunningham (2007: 27), illustrates proficiency levels on the combined mathematics scale in PISA 2006, the percentages of students achieving each level, and compares the Irish scores to the OECD average.



Table 1: Proficiency levels on the combined mathematics scale in PISA 2006, and percentages of 15 year old

students achieving each level (Ireland and OECD average)

The data presented in table 1 reflects the findings of other assessments such as the National

Assessment of Mathematics Achievement (Shiel and Kelly 2001; Surgenor et al. 2006, Eivers et

al. 2010) and TIMSS (1995) (Mullis et al. 1997). Irish students are proficient at tasks associated

with levels 1-3, yet do not compare as well when dealing with mathematical reasoning and

developing approaches to analysing, evaluating and working with complex mathematical

problems (levels 5-6). According to the PISA 2006 results (Eivers et al. 2007), at levels 5 and 6

Ireland fares slightly less well than the OECD average and considerably poorer than countries

such as Korea and Hong Kong where over 27 per cent of students reached level 5 or higher.

However, research conducted in Ireland reveals that with the appropriate amount of time

allocated to the exploration of higher level mathematical skills and with best practice modelled

Level

Cut-Point

At this level, a majority of students can IRL SE

%

OECD SE

%

Level 6

Above 669.3

Evaluate, generalise and use

information from mathematical

modelling of complex problem

situations

1.6

0.25

3.3

0.09

Level 5

607.0 – 669.3

Develop and work with

mathematical models of complex

situations

8.6

0.67

10.0

0.12

Level 4

544.7 – 607.0

Work with mathematical models

of complex concrete situations

20.6

0.94

19.1

0.16

Level 3

482.4 – 544.7

Work in familiar contexts usually

requiring multiple steps for

solution

28.6

0.90

24.3

0.16

Level 2

420.1 – 482.4

Work in simple contexts that

require no more than direct

inference.

24.1

1.00

21.9

0.17

Level 1

357.8 – 420.1

Work on clearly defined tasks in

familiar contexts where all

relevant information is present

and no inference is required

12.3

0.93

13.6

0.15

Below Level

1

<357.8

Not respond correctly to more

than 50% of Level 1 questions.

Mathematical literacy is not

assessed by PISA.

4.1

0.50

7.7

0.14



by primary teachers, Irish students are very capable in areas such as problem solving,

estimation, prediction (O’Shea, 2003).

Observations from classrooms The Primary Curriculum Review (NCCA 2008) and O’Shea (2009) reveal that teachers reported

challenges with the development of higher order thinking skills. Not surprisingly, Shiel and Kelly

(2001) stress the need for a more intensive focus on higher level mathematical skills, such as

problem-solving in schools. Worryingly, according to Surgenor et al. (2006), 90 per cent of

inspectors concluded that they were either ‘dissatisfied’/‘somewhat satisfied’ with pupils’

performance in engaging in mathematical reasoning, and 51 per cent reported dissatisfaction

with the achievement of pupils in analysing and solving problems and evaluating solutions (Shiel

and Kelly 2001). Both these reports posit limited student proficiency in performing higher level

mathematical operations. It may be that teachers are inhibited by the repertoire of teaching

methodologies they are confident in using as they facilitate the development of students'

higher order mathematical processes (O’Shea, 2009). Indeed O’Shea illuminates the difficulties

for teachers in making the transition from utilising traditional methods of teaching mathematics

to employing those teaching strategies that reflect current best practice. One of the most

significant factors in making that transition is the level of engagement and participation in ITE

mathematics education programmes (O’Shea and Leavy 2010).

From a constructivist perspective, the employment of group collaborations in classrooms is

essential; this skill of working collaboratively is particularly important in the development of

problem-solving skills. However, 50% of inspectors expressed dissatisfaction with grouping

arrangement for mathematics in single grade fourth classes (Shiel and Kelly 2001). The Primary

Curriculum Review (NCCA 2008) also found that teachers reported challenges with using

collaborative learning strategies. More recent observations of classroom teaching indicate that

the landscape of the classroom as regards the use of collaborative learning opportunities in

mathematics has not changed significantly. Between the period of October 2009 and October

2010 527 mathematics lessons were observed during incidental inspections by the inspectorate.

In only 48.4% of the mathematics lessons observed were pupils enabled to work collaboratively

(DES 2010b). However, observations indicate that there is satisfaction with many aspects of

mathematics teaching and learning. The inspectorate found that 75% of teachers had prepared

satisfactorily for the mathematics lesson evaluated, 82.7% had used appropriate teaching

approaches during the mathematics lesson and 82.2% had provided the pupils with appropriate

learning activities (DES 2010b).

There are also opportunities to increase the use of classroom practices and tools that support

higher order mathematical thinking and reasoning. Shiel and Kelly (2001) revealed that teachers

were reluctant to see the calculator introduced to the primary school and believed that

computer software was not to be relied upon for teaching mathematics. These perceptions,

where they exist, are particularly unfortunate. The use of new technologies can turn the



arduous tasks of tedious calculations and graph construction, for example, over to calculators

and computers thereby allowing students to spend more time on mathematical reasoning and

problem-solving.

Overall, TIMSS (1995), PISA (2006), and National Assessments of Mathematics Achievement

(Shiel and Kelly 2001; Surgenor et al. 2006; Eivers et al. 2010) illustrate that Irish students

perform well when presented with basic mathematics requiring them to use operations and

recall basic facts and algorithms, but are challenged when it comes to using higher level

mathematical processes, including developing and working with novel mathematical problems

and using their own methods and strategies in evaluating and solving mathematical problems.

It is pertinent to mention here that assessments of mathematics at the post-primary level have

been shown to reinforce the importance of mathematics procedures (NCCA 2005b)4. This is

concerning due to the high stakes nature of post-primary examinations. The Irish leaving

certificate influences greatly the teaching of mathematics (Lyons, Lynch, Close, Sheeran and

Boland 2003) and in turn we might expect an emphasis on procedures rather than reasoning.

The visibility of problem solving is evident in post-primary mathematics, although current

structures may facilitate the strategic neglect of problem solving for those students not aiming

for upper A or B grades5 (cf. NCCA 2005b).

A chasm exists between exceptional performance with basic mathematical facts, algorithms and

operations and somewhat limited performance in higher level problem solving processes. It is

this underachievement in higher order mathematical processes and reasoning that needs to be

addressed and it is achievable within the broader context of the recently published report.

4 An NCCA comparison of Leaving Certificate mathematics examinations against comparable international exams, refers to greater levels of formal language and of advanced and formal mathematics, and decreased emphasis on the role of context in the questions posed in the examination. This prevalence of decontextualized questions, the authors claim, has lead to an ‘increased emphasis on recall and on the application of routine procedures’ (NCCA 2005b, p. 11). 5 This has implications for the mathematical beliefs and understandings of entry level pre-service teachers.

In summary

• Little has changed in Irish primary students’ mathematical strengths and

weaknesses, as evidenced in national assessments, since the implementation of the

Primary School Mathematics Curriculum (1999).

• Irish students perform well with basic (lower-order) mathematics requiring the use

of operations and the recall of basic facts and algorithms.

• Weaknesses are evident in higher order mathematical reasoning, in understanding

mathematical concepts and in application of familiar procedures and techniques to

contexts deviating from those with which students are familiar.



Section 2: TEACHER KNOWLEDGE

The impact of teacher knowledge Mathematical competence requires that children construct rich conceptual understandings of

mathematics, develop connections between procedures, concepts and representations, and

engage in dialogue and discourse around mathematics. Supporting the construction of these

competencies requires that teachers themselves have rich connected understandings of

mathematics. Reform in mathematics education in Ireland and abroad, however, has changed

both the types of mathematics (for example, the introduction of probability, statistics, and

algebra to the primary level mathematics curriculum) and the way mathematics is being taught

(for example, the recent emphasis on constructivist and socio-cultural approaches). These

reforms require that many teachers teach mathematics in ways counter to how they

themselves were taught (Ball 1988; Schifter 2001).

The important role played by teacher knowledge has been accentuated also by the established

relationships between teacher knowledge and both instruction (Borko, Eisenhart, Brown,

Underhill, Jones and Agard, 1992; Fennema and Franke 1992; Leinhardt and Smith 1985) and

student achievement (Hill, Rowan, and Ball, 2005; Rowan, Chiang, and Miller, 1997). There has

been evidence to suggest that some teachers lack the mathematical knowledge needed for

teaching (Ma 1999) causing widespread concern about the preparedness of teachers to teach

mathematics and leading in part to the accountability movements in the United States and

United Kingdom.

Types of knowledge required for effective teaching of mathematics Teaching mathematics for understanding is a complex task. Hill, Schilling and Ball (2004)

acknowledge that the knowledge required to teach mathematics effectively is ‘multi-

dimensional’. Burke (2000: 23) suggests that graduating primary teachers require

In order to teach any subject, including mathematics, effectively, it is proposed that teachers

need many types of knowledge. As well as more generic knowledge (e.g. general pedagogical

…a good knowledge of the content and pedagogy of the subject areas to be taught along

with a balanced and critical understanding of the theoretical underpinnings of different

approaches to teaching-traditional/progressive, didactic/discursive, teacher-centred/child-

centred.

In the following section we provide a brief overview of the nature of the mathematical

knowledge required for teaching mathematics. Outlining this knowledge is an important task

in this document, as it provides signposts to the types of knowledge that need to be targeted

and developed in ITE mathematics education courses.



knowledge, knowledge of students), Shulman (1986) posits that teachers require three

categories of knowledge. These categories are subject-matter knowledge, pedagogical content

knowledge, and curricular knowledge. Research in the past two decades, examining both the

classroom teaching of mathematics and the knowledge needed to teach mathematics, has

expanded the categories proposed by Shulman. Figure 2 outlines an important delineation of

Shulman’s first two categories (subject-matter knowledge and pedagogical content knowledge)

that has been posited by Ball, Thames and Phelps (2008).

Teacher Knowledge

Subject-matter knowledge (SMK)

(Shulman, 1986)

Pedagogical content knowledge (PCK)

(Shulman, 1986)

Common content

knowledge (CCK)

(Ball et al. 2008)

Specialized content

knowledge (SCK)

(Ball et al. 2008)

Knowledge of

content and

students (KCS)

(Ball et al. 2008)

Knowledge of

content and

teaching (KCT)

(Ball et al. 2008)

Figure 2: Categorisation of knowledge needed for teaching mathematics

The first type of teacher knowledge is subject matter knowledge (commonly called ‘content

knowledge’ in the general literature) which ‘refers to the amount and organisation of

knowledge per se in the mind of teachers’ (Shulman 1986: 9). Elaborating further subject matter

knowledge includes the facts and concepts of a discipline, its organizing frameworks, and the

ways in which propositional knowledge has been generated and established. According to Ball

et al (2008), subject matter knowledge is further categorised into common and specialised

content knowledge. While it is perceived that most people would possess common content

knowledge, specialised content knowledge refers to the knowledge required for teaching e.g.

multiple strategies (Petrou 2007). Common content knowledge involves knowledge of the

mathematics school curriculum, for example being able to divide fractions, calculate the mean,

and identify a triangular number. Specialised content knowledge is mathematical knowledge

beyond the curriculum – it is the knowledge of mathematics specifically used for teaching.

We will use figure 3 to illustrate the distinctive characteristics of common and specialised

knowledge. We will use a simple subtraction computation commonly seen in 3rd class (figure

3a). Most people will be able to calculate the result as 178 (figure 3b). In order to teach, being

able to perform this subtraction is necessary. This is common content knowledge (CCK).

However, being able to carry out the procedure is not sufficient knowledge for teaching. Let’s



explore why. An error frequently manifested in classrooms is that presented in figure 3c.

Specialised content knowledge of the mathematics (SCK) now becomes important. The teacher

needs sufficient mathematical knowledge of subtraction in order to provide an explanation for

the procedure; an explanation that is rooted conceptually in the meaningful manipulation of

quantities. The teacher also needs sufficient mathematical knowledge to recognise the source

of the error. A teacher needs to recognise that the student has calculated the difference

between the two numbers in each column by subtracting the smaller digit from the larger digit.

Such skills in error analysis require specialised knowledge of mathematics. This knowledge

extends beyond procedural knowledge of why the algorithm works (understandings involving

more than the procedure of ‘crossing out’, ‘putting down’ and ‘carrying back’ numbers) and

requires an understanding of specific steps in the procedure, what they mean, and why it makes

sense. Furthermore, specialised content knowledge is also necessary to inform the answers to

questions such as these: what is the role played by zeros in different locations in the problem?

When moving from problems that have one regrouping to problems which have two

regroupings, what does the procedure indicate about the underlying activity with/on

quantities?

a.

b.

c.

Figure 3: Subtraction requiring decomposition

Importantly, subject-matter knowledge and the associated categories of common and

specialised content knowledge (the unshaded regions of figure 2) are not the focus of any

course of study for pre-service teachers in Mary Immaculate College6.

The second type of teacher knowledge is Pedagogical Content Knowledge (figure 2). This refers

to more than knowledge of the mathematics, and focuses more exclusively on knowledge for

teaching. Ball and her colleagues categorise pedagogical content knowledge into knowledge of

content and students (KCS) and knowledge of content and teaching (KCT). Knowledge of content

and students (KCS) “combines knowing about students and knowing about mathematics” (Ball

et al. 2008). This type of knowledge includes knowledge of common student misconceptions,

mathematics that is perceived as interesting or difficult, and common approaches used by

6 Prior to this century, the mathematics subject-matter knowledge of pre-service teachers was the focus of instruction at MIC through the provision of what was termed ‘Professional Mathematics’ courses.



children when presented with specific tasks. For example, teachers with sufficient KCS know

that some children who recognize the shape in figure 4a (below) as a square may not identify

the same shape as a square when rotated 45 degrees as in figure 4b (below). Knowledge of

content and teaching (KCT) provides teachers with the understandings required to plan their

teaching so that this misconception is challenged. This planning incorporates attention to the

sequencing of instruction to address misconceptions and draws on useful examples to highlight

the misconception. This type of knowledge is also necessary to inform the design of a sequence

of instruction that provides a trajectory of tasks which build in complexity and at a speed that

provides sufficient consolidation of understanding. Furthermore such teachers are aware of the

advantages and disadvantages of using particular representations of quadrilaterals that feed

into and support the misconception highlighted in figure 4.

a.

b.

Figure 4: A square and a rotated square

These types of knowledge facilitate the transformation of personal content knowledge into a

form which makes it accessible to learners (Rowland, Turner, Thwaites and Huckstep, 2009).

Rowland et al. (2009) also categorise this type of knowledge further referring to

‘transformation’, ‘connection’ and ‘contingency’ knowledge for teaching. While

‘transformation’ refers to the means by which the subject matter knowledge is ‘transformed’

for the purposes of teaching through the use of demonstration, examples etc, ‘connection’

knowledge is required to make sequencing decisions. ‘Contingency’ reflects the teacher’s ability

to ‘think on his/her feet’ i.e. react to the pupil responses/questions. Further exploration of

these knowledge domains, while important for ITE contexts, is beyond the focus of this

response.

The third category of teacher knowledge is curriculum knowledge, which is “represented by the

full range of programs designed for the teaching of particular subjects and topics at a given

level, the variety of instructional materials available in relation to those programs, and the set

of characteristics that serve as both the indications and contraindications for the use of

particular curriculum or program materials in particular circumstances” (Shulman 1986, 10).

Possession of this type of knowledge suggests an awareness of how topics are arranged both in

a school year and over longer periods of time and ways of using curriculum resources such as

texts.



In summary

It is widely accepted within the mathematics education community that all three types of

knowledge (subject-matter knowledge, pedagogical content knowledge, and curricular

knowledge) need to be addressed in ITE. In addition to these areas, the task of identifying and

reflecting upon beliefs and attitudes towards the teaching and learning of mathematics is a

critically important task. While we will not address the attitudes and beliefs of entry-level pre-

service teachers about mathematics in this response, it is important to note that the beliefs

about what constitutes mathematics tend to be informed by post-primary experiences of

mathematics and generally do not lend themselves to the types of beliefs and understandings

required for teaching mathematics at the primary level.

There is no reference in the draft report for the need to develop pre-service teacher’s subject-

matter knowledge for teaching mathematics. The report emphasizes the importance of

pedagogical content knowledge. While pedagogical content knowledge is the central focus of

pedagogies/methodologies in ITE mathematics education courses, success in these courses is

predicated on the individual’s subject-matter knowledge of mathematics. Provision needs to

be made in ITE to directly target subject matter knowledge of mathematics. There are

currently no courses in ITE at Mary Immaculate College that address the subject-matter

knowledge of pre-service teachers. It is assumed that pre-service teachers come ‘equipped’

with sufficient subject matter knowledge derived from their post-primary experiences of

mathematics. Pre-service teachers have courses only in the pedagogy of mathematics, these

pedagogy courses address only pedagogical content knowledge (the shaded region of figure 2).

However, as we will illustrate in the next section, we find an alarming amount of our time

dedicated to addressing the deficits in subject-matter knowledge of entry level pre-service

teachers (in particular specialised content knowledge of the nature outlined in the subtraction

problem in figure 3).



Section 3: The role of Mathematics in the preparation

of primary pre-service teachers

Pre-service primary teachers at Mary Immaculate College access mathematics instruction

through two possible avenues. All students take pedagogy of mathematics courses; these

courses are taught by mathematics educators from the faculty of Education. A proportion of

these same students study mathematics to degree level; these courses are taught by

mathematicians in the Arts faculty.

Studying Mathematics as a Degree Subject Ball (1990) challenges common assumptions about elementary mathematics teaching stating

that, despite public perceptions, elementary school mathematics is not easy and that pre-

college education is insufficient in providing teachers with the subject matter knowledge

required to teach. This view is supported by a recent study of the statistical understandings of

457 entry-level Irish pre-service primary teachers which found that ‘Prior experiences with

(school) statistics do not adequately support conceptual knowledge for teaching data at the

primary level’ (Leavy and Sloane 2010). An earlier study of the mathematics knowledge of

primary pre-service teachers carried out by Leavy and O’ Loughlin (2006) found significant

deficits in the ability of pre-service teachers to apply mathematical knowledge to unfamiliar

contexts. The authors (2006: 53) stated that given the demands of mathematical reform

movements internationally to develop among pupils connections between procedures,

concepts and representations, that teachers themselves require ‘…rich connected

understandings of the mathematical content…’. Hill et al (2005) support the view suggesting

that the mathematical knowledge required for the work of teaching is vast given that this work

includes explaining, interpreting pupils’ responses and the selection of appropriate examples

and representations.

There have been a range of efforts dedicated to identifying teacher characteristics which are

indicators of good mathematics teaching. Many of these efforts have focused on identifying

teacher knowledge of mathematics. These investigations of mathematical content knowledge

have involved administering tests of mathematical skills, identifying the number of

mathematical courses taken, and using academic scores on mathematical tests of achievement.

These studies were motivated, in part, by the perception that advanced mathematics can serve

as a deepening and broadening, an extension, even, of primary mathematics. There has,

however, been a plethora of research in recent years indicating that it is possible to complete

advanced courses in mathematics without illuminating primary level mathematical

understandings (Ma 1999; Ball et al. 2008). At a certain stage, it has been shown, the

relationship between teacher mathematical knowledge and instruction levels out and simply

increasing the number of mathematics classes taken does not bring about improvements in

instruction (Borko et al. 1992). While knowledge of mathematics is a critical component of good

mathematics teaching, focusing simply on how much mathematics a person knows



underestimates considerably the types of knowledge that contribute to good mathematics

teaching (Hill et al. 2004).

Indeed, there is ample evidence which contradicts the belief that teachers with higher levels of

academic knowledge are better teachers (Burke 2000). Ball (1990: 449) challenges the

assumption that ‘…majoring in mathematics ensures subject matter knowledge’, reporting that

these same pre-service teachers also struggle to make sense of division with fractions or to

relate mathematics to the real world. As outlined in the previous section subject-matter

knowledge is important. However it is recognized internationally that subject matter knowledge

beyond a certain threshold is not associated with greater pupil achievement i.e. primary

teachers do not necessarily need to study mathematics to degree level (‘threshold’ view)

(Department of Education and Science 2002).

Within the research literature, a criticism of the provision of a larger number of mathematics

courses for pre-service teachers is that it tends to be irrelevant to the classroom (Wu 2006).

Studies of final year pre-service primary teachers in Mary Immaculate College, who were also

studying mathematics to degree level, indicate that these students do not demonstrate more

sophisticated understandings of informal inference and other statistical concepts than their

peers who are not studying mathematics to degree level (Leavy 2010; Leavy & Sloane 2010)7.

The provision of mathematics courses for primary level pre-service teachers This problem is not a uniquely Irish phenomenon. Other colleges and universities have worked

to provide courses that address the knowledge needed for teaching mathematics as opposed to

simply providing more mathematics. The outcome is that primary level pre-service teacher

candidates are required in many jurisdictions to study ‘gateway’ courses in mathematics. These

courses provide an emphasis on the types of knowledge needed to teach mathematics and

present a deeper conceptual focus on mathematical concepts. In general, in the United States8,

there are a minimum of three such courses associated with primary education focusing on areas

such as Number and Operations, Geometry and Measurement, Algebra, Probability and

Statistics. Satisfactory completion of these courses is required to progress to Mathematics

Pedagogy courses. In many colleges these courses are designed by a team of mathematics

educators and mathematicians (including statisticians), thus drawing from the expertise of all

partners in mathematics education.

7 It is important to clarify that undergraduate courses in mathematics are not designed, and neither should they be, to

supplement the special mathematical requirements of pre-service primary teachers. Research indicates that many pre-service primary teachers, who study mathematics to degree, are unable to ‘unpack’ (Ma, 1999) their understandings gained in mathematics and make connections to pedagogy. 8 While there are many universities which offer courses of this nature, for those who want to read further, we direct you to the

courses offered at the following institutions renowned for their emphasis in mathematics education: The University of Delaware, The University of Wisconsin-Madison, The University of Maryland – College Park, and the University of Michigan.



In summary, mathematics is a discipline with a specified body of knowledge and associated

skills. Undergraduate mathematics courses are not designed, and neither should they be, to

serve the particular needs of education students. Mathematics education is equally a

discipline with its own unique body of knowledge and skills. Simply providing more courses in

mathematics will not, as research clearly indicates, make our students better teachers of

mathematics. What is required are custom designed courses, similar to those existing in

other countries, that address the very unique knowledge demands placed on teachers of

mathematics.



Section 4: Initial Teacher Education: The case of

Primary Level Mathematics Education

Challenges facing Mathematics Educators in ITE Pre-service mathematics teacher education is expected to help pre-service teachers develop

many skills simultaneously such as knowledge, know-how, methods, attitudes and habits

(Comiti and Loewenberg Ball 1996). It is extremely difficult to achieve these goals, especially in

the limited time and space of initial teacher education (Nesbitt Vacc and Bright 1994).

Length of the Course At present in Mary Immaculate College the length of the undergraduate teacher education

course is three years in duration, the postgraduate course takes 1.5 years on top of an initial

degree qualification. Such lengths are among the shortest in the countries partaking in the

OECD (2005) study. In several countries, the period available for initial preparation is regarded

as inadequate. There has been a tendency in many countries to extend their course in an effort

to improve the quality of the programme on offer e.g. Finland extended its course from four to

five years, while Australia increased the duration of their teacher education course from four to

six years (Government of Ireland 2002; OECD 2005).

We welcome the extension of the course from three to four years. Current mathematics

pedagogy provision consists of an amalgam of subject matter knowledge, pedagogical and

curriculum knowledge. Due to time constraints and the number of ‘essential’ topics which must

be covered in the skeleton course, there is little hope of giving pre-service teachers even basic

insights into cognitive research on how children learn mathematics. With the provision of an

additional year, we are particularly cognisant that there are limits to how much teacher-

learners can ‘take in’ all at once. An additional year will provide opportunities to forge closer

links with theory (as presented in our lectures) and practice (as experience in classroom

settings). Pre-service teachers will have time to take stock of new insights and in some cases

reconstruct their ideas (i.e. reflect on beliefs, experiences, attitudes) about the teaching of

mathematics.

Conditions in which pre-service teachers are taught The minimum group sizes at present in the undergraduate mathematics pedagogy courses are

50 (and frequently 60+). With the best of intentions and effort, combined with state-of-the art

facilities and the innovative use of technologies, it is extremely difficult to model best practices

in mathematics pedagogy with such large group sizes. Smaller group sizes would maximise

students’ experiences with the opportunities provided for problem-solving, mathematical

discourse, exploration of alternative instructional strategies, and utilisation of a range of tools

and equipment used in the teaching of mathematics. Furthermore, in order to facilitate pre-

service teachers to embrace reform approaches completely, existing beliefs and assumptions



regarding mathematics and its teaching must be examined critically and used as a spring board

for alternative experiences (Government of Ireland 2002; Peard 2007).

Characteristics of incoming students

Nature of post-primary mathematics experience (the case of Ireland)

Publicity has been escalating regarding the low levels of mathematical skills evident among Irish

third level entrants generally (NCCA 2005b; Hourigan and O’Donoghue 2007). Irish studies

concur that post-primary mathematics experience equates mathematics education with the

memorisation of formulae and procedures as opposed to thinking creatively, providing reasons

for solutions, or solving realistic mathematical problems (Hourigan and O’Donoghue 2007;

Leavy and Sloane, 2010; Murphy 2002; NCCA 2005b). On a more positive note, into the future,

efforts to ‘address the problem where it arises’ have begun. A new second level curriculum

‘Project Maths’ seeks to promote conceptual understanding and problem solving within realistic

contexts (NCCA 2006). In the interim, however, there is no doubt that the nature of the

predominant post-primary mathematics experience is exacerbating the demands placed on pre-

service educators.

Influence of post-primary mathematics education on subject matter knowledge

International Context: Consensus exists that a teacher must possess a deep understanding of

the content they are to teach (Feiman-Nemser 2001; Grossman et al. 2005). Mathematics

education is no exception, where research advocates the need for ‘profound’ understanding of

the fundamental concepts in order to be able to transform their learner knowledge into teacher

knowledge i.e. use of appropriate examples, representation as well as their ability to respond

appropriately to learners’ approaches and errors (Hill et al. 2004; Ball et al. 2005; Rowland et al.

2009). Studies internationally have reported that pre-service teachers demonstrate weaknesses

in their conceptual knowledge and in some cases even in their procedural knowledge (Ma 1999;

Falmer, Gerretson & Lassak, 2003).

The Irish Context: The research which has been carried out by a number of individual

researchers in various Irish Colleges of Education (Wall 2001; Leavy 2004; Corcoran 2005a,

2005b; Oldham 2005; Leavy and O’Loughlin 2006; Delaney 2008; Hourigan 2009; Leavy 2009;

Leavy and Sloane 2010) reflects international findings. The reality that although all entrants

have achieved the minimum mathematics requirements in the Leaving Certificate, many

demonstrate inadequate mathematics subject matter knowledge has received some attention

(Wall, 2001; NCCA, 2006; Leavy & Sloane, 2010). Another consideration which needs to be

mention is the decreasing confidence regarding what grades really signify (grade depreciation).

O’ Donoghue (1999) suggests that we can no longer rely, to the same extent as before, on

mathematics grades as valid indicators of student competence. The Leaving Certificate and

Points system are designed as a selection instrument and as a result mathematics grades

achieved in state examinations are not comparable to the same grades in the past (Murphy

2002; Hourigan and O’Donoghue 2007). The Working Group on Primary Pre-service Teacher

Education (Department of Education and Science 2002) recommended that the minimum



standards in mathematics for entry to pre-service courses in Colleges of Education should be a

grade D3 in Higher Level Leaving Certificate and C3 in Ordinary Level Leaving Certificate

(Government of Ireland 2002). A recommendation from the recent report, on the preparation

of pre-service teachers to teach the data strand of the primary level curriculum, carried out by

Leavy and Sloane (2010) stated that: ‘A focus on mathematical content knowledge of pre-service

primary teachers is critical. An increase in the entry level requirement for mathematics of pre-

service primary teachers is merited to ensure sufficient levels of mathematical understanding.’

(p. 8)

Insights provided by three studies: Illustrations of how poor mathematical knowledge is manifested

in the context of ITE at Mary Immaculate College

Study 1 The study of the development and implementation of a needs-led intervention to improve the

mathematics subject matter knowledge of primary pre-service teachers found poor

performance on mathematics items regardless of grade in Leaving Certificate Mathematics or

level of study of mathematics (Hourigan 2009). We present three of the items administered to

272 second-year pre-service teachers at Mary Immaculate College.

Item 11. Write the following values below in ascending order (smallest first)

62.5% 1.25 0.375 0.75 87

Smallest Biggest

Item 13. Tom spent ¼ of his money in the pet shop. He then spent two thirds of the

remainder in the sports shop. What fraction of his money has he spent altogether?

Item 32. A barrel of water was used to give animals drinking water during the summer

months. John was given a small cylindrical jar (which holds 45ml) to fill the barrel. He

started filling at 9.20a.m. and finished at 11a.m. How many jars will it take to fill the barrel?

As can be seen from table 2, it became apparent that while performance in the test overall was

found to be positively related to level of mathematics achievement and study to date, in many

6.12 litres

45ml



items the levels of incorrect answers suggest poor conceptual knowledge and problem solving

skills across the board.

In items requiring conceptual understanding such as item 11, where pre-service teachers were

required to order the relevant fractions, decimals and percentages, while percentages of failure

were higher among subgroups who studied mathematics for less time or at a lower level,

substantial levels of inadequate knowledge was apparent across the board. This was also the

case in the item requiring problem solving involving fractions (item 13) and capacity (item 32).

These findings question the ability of both pre-tertiary and tertiary mathematics education in

preparing students with appropriate knowledge and understanding of mathematics for

teaching. It also calls in question the adequacy of current practice in relation to minimum entry

requirements for the course (D3 O/H level LC mathematics). Such findings support research

which questions the ‘meaning of grades’ and highlights the gaps and weaknesses in Leaving

Certificate students at all levels (O’ Donoghue 1999; NCCA 2006). The findings also support the

proposal that studying mathematics at degree level may not be conducive to the development

of mathematics subject matter knowledge for teaching (Steffe 1999; Kahan et al. 2002;

Goulding 2003).

Item Brief

Description

LC OL

% (N=)

LC HL

% (N=)

LC Only

% (N=)

Minor

% (N=)

Major

% (N=)

11 Order

rational nos.

68.4%

(93)

37%

(30)

62.7%

(104)

45.7%

(16)

40.6%

(13)

13 Fraction

Problem

77.9%

(106)

65.4%

(53)

79.5%

(132)

65.7%

(23)

53.1%

(17)

32 Capacity

Problem

62.5%

(85)

43.2%

(35)

62.7%

(104)

40%

(14)

43.8%

(14)

LC OL: Studied mathematics at Leaving Certificate Ordinary Level

LC HL: Studies mathematics at Leaving Certificate Higher Level

LC Only: Studied mathematics to Leaving Certificate only

Minor: Studied mathematics as minor degree subject

Major: Studied mathematics as major degree subject

Table 2: Failure Levels of Various Subgroups on Individual Pre-test Items

Study 2 In a recent study by Leavy and Sloane (2010), 118 entry-level pre-service teachers were

requested to construct a pie chart when presented with 30 data values (the pie chart was

selected as it is the target of instruction in the Primary School Mathematics Curriculum. 34% of

participants correctly constructed a pie chart and the remaining 66% of participants were

unable to construct the pie chart. Of the latter, 14% of participants displayed considerable

difficulty in constructing the representation – these participants completed the task but the

resulting pie chart did not accurately illustrate the data. Almost half of all participants did not



complete the task (see figure 5). Further examination of figure 4 reveals interesting insights into

mathematical understandings (note that effort to sum the columns of values). Examination of

these responses shows that a variety of methods were used to construct the graph. However

many respondents wrote on the survey that they ‘could not remember how to do it’ (see figure

6) and did not make any effort to represent the data.

Figure 5: Incomplete attempt to construct pie chart

Figure 6: No attempt to construct pie chart

Poor mathematical content knowledge is not confined to the undergraduate students. A recent

examination of the content knowledge of 60 postgraduate students at Mary Immaculate

College found that 20% were unable to construct a triangle that had an angle of 110 degree.

The task required participants to construct a triangle with one side 4cm, one side 6cm and the

angle between these side having a of measure 1100. 20% of participants constructed triangles

with angles of 70 degrees (see figures 7 and 8 below).

Figure 7 Figure 8



In summary, these brief illustrations of content knowledge deficiencies provide an insight

into the challenges faced in mathematics teacher education at MIC. Mathematics pedagogy

courses are not designed to teach mathematics content – the presumption exists that

students understand the mathematics they are going to teach. We are constantly struggling

to meet the subject-matter knowledge demands of pre-service teachers in the absence of

resources to address these needs.

In order to address the issue of substandard subject matter knowledge, Shiel et al (2006)

support the Working Group’s recommendation that pre-service teachers should be provided

with Professional Mathematics courses which would facilitate them to develop mathematics

competence as well as their ability to reason mathematically and teach mathematics

effectively.



Section 5: Other Important issues

The Role of the Arts in Mathematics and Science Education We advocate for the important role played by drama in the primary classroom and believe that

drama makes a valuable and unique contribution to the development of the child. Apart from

the contribution of drama as a subject in its own right, a large body of literature exists

supporting the notion that many scientists employ the arts as scientific tools. This research has

revealed the interconnectedness between the arts and sciences. Studies of creativity have

revealed that eminent scientists, mathematicians and engineers have drawn heavily on skills

developed in areas of the arts (for example, spatial and kinesthetic thinking underpin studies of

movement and rotation). The arts have inspired scientific progress – and Root-Bernstein,

amongst others, argues that the contribution of the arts can be found in the invention of new

techniques (virology research on polio vaccines was informed by Richard Buckminster Fuller’s

geodesic structures), structures (protein structures have been modeled drawing from the

Sculptor Kenneth Snelson’s invention of tensegrity; Computer chips are manufactured using

methods adapted from the printmaking techniques of silk screening and etching) and the

development of new aesthetics (pixelation was developed by artists in the pointillism

movement). Robert Root-Bernstein, who researches the arts and creativity, states ‘active

participation and demonstrated ability in one or more of the arts are far more predictive of

success in science than standard measures such as scores on tests such as the SAT, or academic

degrees’.

The use of the imagination, acting and inventing have played important roles in the

advancement of the sciences. This is particularly evident in the work of Barbara McClintock,

who received a Nobel Prize for her work in genetics. She reporting empathizing with and having

a feel for the organisms she worked with.

‘I do not remember exactly at what point I began to apply this way of examining my

experience, but very early in my life I would imagine myself in the position of the object in

which I was interested. Later, when I became a scientist, I would picture myself as a virus, or

a cancer cell, for example, and try to sense what it would be like to be either. I would also

imagine myself as the immune system, and I would try to reconstruct what I would do as an

immune system engaged in combating a virus or cancer cell.’

‘I found that the more I worked with *chromosomes+, the bigger and bigger *they+ got, and

when I was really working with them I wasn't outside, I was down there. I was part of the

system.... As you look at these things, they become part of you. And you forget yourself. The

main thing about it is you forget yourself.’ (McClintock, quoted in Keller, 1983, pp. 69, 117).



Dr. Jonas Salk (1914-1995), Nobel prize nominee and developer of the Salk vaccine for polio,

referred to the concept of "perceptual positions" in his work with viruses and cancer cells.

It is critical that we do not underestimate the ways in which the arts have contributed to

innovation and the advancement of the sciences.

Early Childhood Education In the US the National Association for the Education of Young Children (NAEYC) and The

National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (NCTM) have spoken with one voice in respect to

the assertion that ‘high quality, challenging and accessible mathematics education for 3- to 6-

year olds children is a vital foundation for future mathematics learning’ (NAEYC & NCTM, 2002:

1). To support high quality mathematics education for 3- to 6-year-old children the NAEYC &

NCTM (2002: 3) suggest that policy makers, institutions and programme developers should:

Providing high quality mathematical experiences to children in the early years is a complex task

which includes high quality curriculum development, effective ITE programmes and CPD, etc.

The draft report’s recognition of the importance of providing high-quality early childhood

education which fosters a firm foundation in numeracy skills is welcomed. In Ireland the

Primary School Curriculum (1999) supports children’s learning from four to twelve years and

Aistear, the Early Childhood Curriculum Framework, addresses learning from birth to six years.

The NCCA contends that Aistear and the Primary School Curriculum can complement each other

‘and when used together and supported by appropriate resources, can make a significant

contribution to the experiences of both teachers and children in infant classrooms’ (NCCA,

2009: 21). However the NCCA note that ‘a critical question remains to be answered concerning

the status of Aistear vis – à – vis the Curriculum’ (ibid).

The report’s recommendation that the infant curriculum needs to be reviewed ‘to bring it into

line with the approaches to teaching and learning advocated in the Aistear framework’ (p.27)

needs greater consideration. We believe a rationale for this recommendation needs to be given

especially in light of the fact that there has been no rigorous evaluation of the implementation

of Aistear. Furthermore, we feel that issues such as effective ITE programmes with emphasis on

early childhood mathematics education, specialised CPD on teaching mathematics in the early

years, provision of high quality curriculum, etc. need to be carefully considered when aiming to

improve the teaching and learning of mathematics in the early years.

Create effective early childhood teacher preparation and CPD

Develop high quality standards, curriculum, and assessment

Provide structures and policies that support teachers’ ongoing learning, team-work, and planning

Provide resources to support children’s mathematical learning



Provision for students with special needs in mathematics The lack of adequate support for pupils with special educational needs in mathematics has been

equally highlighted as problematic since the introduction of the Primary School Mathematics

Curriculum’ (1999). The various studies which were carried out in order to evaluate the levels of

implementation of the Primary School Mathematics Curriculum concurred that one of the

major challenges teachers faced was the difficulty in catering for the range of mathematical

abilities and needs which existed in their classrooms (NCCA 2005a; Government of Ireland 2005

a,b). In the National Assessment of Mathematics Achievement (2004) study 12% of qualitative

comments received from teachers referred to the difficulty in implementing the curriculum due

to the demands of dealing with the range of needs and abilities of pupils in their classrooms

(Surgenor et al. 2006).

Meeting the needs of exceptionally able children The report’s acknowledgement of the importance of differentiation is to be welcomed. We

recommend that the DES considers the needs of the more able student in mathematics in

further reports. This is particularly important to consider given that the NCCA, in collaboration

with the Council for Curriculum and Assessment (CCEA) in Northern Ireland, published for the

first time draft guidelines on exceptionally able children in 2008 which contended that 5 – 10%

of the school population may be exceptionally able (NCCA 2008: 8).

Recent international studies reveal that able students in Ireland are not performing as well as

we would hope. The 2006 Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) found that

higher achieving students in Mathematics in Ireland ‘could do better’ (Eivers et al., 2007: 36).

More specifically, 15 year-old students at the 90th percentile in Ireland obtained a score that

was 14 points lower than the OECD average score at that benchmark in PISA (2006) (Shiel et al.

2007: 46).

At a national level the 2004 National Assessment of Mathematics Achievement found that

‘teachers’ comments largely suggest that they experience some difficulty in attending to the

needs of pupils with varying abilities’ (Surgenor et al. 2006: 23). Few school plans ‘included

statements relating to…provision of enrichment activities for more advanced pupils’ (Surgenor

et al. 2006: 27). In the report, responding principals voiced a general level of satisfaction with

the Primary School Mathematics Curriculum but stated that they were concerned ‘that the

curriculum provided fewer challenges for average and above average pupils’ (Surgenor et al.

2006: 27).

These studies highlight that catering for exceptionally able children in Irish primary schools is a

matter of concern. Teachers need to be supported over an extended period in their attempts to

implement a differentiated mathematics curriculum for children including exceptionally able

pupils. This could take the form of working in collaboration with colleagues, continuous

professional development, development of relevant challenging resources that correspond with

the PSMC and work with outside agencies such as the Centre for Talented Youth in Ireland

(McMahon 2004). In addition, problem solving needs to become an integral part of



mathematics lessons. This will help to develop critical and higher-order thinking skills among

mathematically able pupils.

Meeting the needs of children experiencing difficulty with mathematics Since the introduction of the Primary School Mathematics Curriculum (1999), levels of learning

support provision for mathematics were perceived by teachers to be poor and a common

source of dissatisfaction (Shiel et al. 2006). In the NAMA (2004) study just over half of the pupils

(50.6%) attended school where learning support in mathematics was available (Surgenor 2006).

Carr (2004) suggests that these facts may not be a true reflection of what is happening on the

ground. The truth may be disguised due to the fact that when the government claims that

‘…children have access to learning support. This hides the fact that many learning support

teachers are shared between anything up to six or seven schools. In other schools learning

support teachers simply have too many pupils in their case loads’ (Carr, 2004: 1-2). In the NAMA

(2004) study, while 15.6% of pupils were deemed to be in need of learning support in

mathematics, only 6.8% of pupils were receiving the necessary support (Surgenor et al. 2006).

It was also found that 96.1% of pupils attended schools where no junior or senior Infants

received learning support in mathematics (Shiel et al. 2006). Carr (2004b) proposes that

problems that remain unchecked at the early stages of education (i.e. primary level) lead to the

perception that mathematics is ‘a difficult subject’. It also leads to children developing negative

attitudes to the subject at an early age.

The draft report refers to the need to target ‘available additional resources to improving the

learning opportunities and achievement of children who come from the most disadvantaged

communities’ (p.13). This recommendation is laudable and necessitates dedication of resources

to support its implementation. However there is research to suggest a history of inequity in the

distribution of resources in the learning support service in addressing low achievement in

mathematics in designated schools compared to non-designated schools. These concerns

regarding equity issues for pupils in schools in areas of socio-economic disadvantage in

accessing learning support for mathematics at primary level are concerning and these

structures need to be addressed by the DES.9

Another issue which persists in relation to learning support is the disparity which exists

between provision in relation to Mathematics and English. Carr (2004b) confirmed that the

current learning support service prioritises literacy, where children with mathematical

difficulties are provided a service only if there is spare capacity. In the study of disadvantaged

9 See the following research:

Travers, J. (2010). Learning support policy for mathematics in Irish primary schools: equal access but unequal needs.

Irish Educational Studies, 29(1), 71 – 80.

Mc Carthy, J. and Burns, D. (2005) Mathematics- the Cinderella subject of learning support, Learn, Journal of the

Irish learning Support Association, 27, pp.153-158.



schools approximately half of the schools involved had no learning support provision for

numeracy (Government of Ireland, 2005 b.). Over time this imbalance remains, where the

EGFSN (2008: 3) reports that ‘…such pupils receive three times more assistance with their

English as they do with their maths from learning-support teachers’. Surgenor and Shiel (2008)

label mathematics as the ‘Cinderella subject’ of learning support.

Assessment

The draft report states that improvement in schools can be promoted by improving radically the

assessment and reporting of progress at student, school and national level. We agree that

assessment is required but further reports/guidelines should highlight that assessment is more

than just testing (NCCA 2007: 7). The NCCA (2007: 66) outline various assessment methods

including self-assessment, conferencing, portfolio assessment, concept mapping, questioning,

teacher observation, teacher designed tasks and tests and standardised testing. These should

all be explored in depth to see how they can be used effectively to help children improve their

mathematical understanding. The use of appropriate assessment methods is particularly

pertinent given that the inspectorate found that in 34% of the mathematics lessons

evaluated during incidental visits assessment practices were unsatisfactory (DES 2010b).

Assessment is not a panacea; we have to also address the social and economic factors that

affect schools and the children that attend them. We need to very carefully construct what we

mean by ‘assessment’ and the reports references to ‘relentless assessment’ are worrying.

Overemphasis on summative assessment results in lost opportunities for learning that arise

from formative assessment. If we look to the case of the United States and the assessment

focus placed by the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) movement, we can avoid the failings of this

high stakes assessment movement. Research on the outcomes of NCLB documented the

narrowing of the curriculum to just what is tested, and found a huge increase in time spent in

test preparation instead of genuine instruction. The work of Berliner found

Let us hope that in 10 years time we will not be in a similar position as our colleagues in the

United States reflecting on the aftermath of NCLB

‘teachers concerned about their loss of morale, the undercutting of their professionalism,

and the problem of disillusionment among their students. Teachers and administrators told

us repeatedly how they were not against accountability, but that they were being held

responsible for their students’ performance regardless of other factors that may affect it.

Dentists aren’t held responsible for cavities and physicians for the onset of diabetes when

youngsters don’t brush their teeth, or eat too much junk food, they argue.’

‘we are turning America into a nation of test-takers, abandoning our heritage as a nation of

thinkers, dreamers, and doers.’ (Berliner and Nichols 2007, p. 48)



Section 6: Recommendations

The need for an integrated and coordinated response from all providers of mathematics

education at all levels

Given the evidenced impact of pre-tertiary education on tertiary education, there is a critical

need for change in practices at all levels of mathematics education. It is essential that the

provision of mathematics at all stages of pre-tertiary education (i.e. both primary and

secondary) reflect best practices. The EGFSN (2008) highlights the need to ‘mainstream’ good

practice. Smooth transitions are essential across all levels of education and unless there is a

coordinated effort to make reform across both primary and secondary education then advances

made at primary level cannot be built upon and progressed at post-primary level.

Actions aimed at addressing mathematics content knowledge deficits of pre-service primary

teachers

Dissatisfaction with the nature of pre-service teachers’ subject matter knowledge has resulted

in an accountability movement in various education systems internationally e.g. US, UK. In such

contexts standards were introduced and rigorously tested at various levels. For example, UK

students must complete a mandatory test in mathematics in order to provide evidence of

secure subject matter knowledge for Qualified Teacher Status (QTS). In the US, many states

assess mathematics knowledge of pre-service teachers as part of their licensure process

through the administration of Basic Skills Tests such as the Praxis.

Primary level pre-service teacher candidates are required in many jurisdictions to study

‘gateway’ courses in mathematics. In general in the United States, there are a minimum of

three such courses associated with primary education focusing on Number and Operations,

Geometry and Measurement, Algebra, Probability and Statistics. Satisfactory completion of

these courses is required to progress to Mathematics Pedagogy courses.



Actions aimed at supporting practising teachers in their teaching of mathematics While it is important to improve initial teacher education, this alone is insufficient (OECD 2005).

The Commission of European Communities (2007) acknowledge that initial teacher education

cannot provide the array of skills and knowledge necessary for a life-time of teaching. Pre-

service education must be supplemented by ongoing professional development (OECD 2005;

European Commission 2007). If qualified teachers do not adopt the role of lifelong learners,

there is a great probability that they will experience feelings of inadequacy in the early

months/years of practice (Burke 2000).

However, it is critical that the professional development opportunities are monitored to ensure

the provision of experiences that support classroom teachers in their daily work. There is a

broad expanse of literature examining the provision of continuing professional development

(CPD) and efforts should be made to design CPD opportunities which reflect best practices in

the field. For example, in mathematics education there is the need for CPD which provides

opportunities to translate traditional research knowledge into forms pre-service and practising

teachers can use to improve their practice. One such approach is Lesson Study, a Japanese form

of professional development involving the design and observation of live lessons, called

research lessons, by a group of classroom teachers. Lesson Study has been successfully

implemented for the past 5 years at Mary Immaculate College with pre-service teachers

•An increase in the pre-professional mathematics requirement i.e. an increase in the minimum grade achieved in Leaving Certificate Mathematics.

Recommendation 1

•The provision of targeted courses in mathematics that develop conceptual understandings of mathematics concepts critical to primary level educators. These courses should be aligned with the primary curriculum strands and address Number, Shape and Space, Statistics and Probability, Algebra and Measurement.

Recommendation 2

•The requirement that a passing grade in Mathematics Pedagogy courses is required to progress in the programme.

Recommendation 3

•The adequate resourcing of the mathematics education area to support the provision of mathematics education courses in groups of 25 students.

Recommendation 4

•An increase in the amount of contact time in ITE programmes to ensure that pre-service teachers gain experiences with innovative pedagogies across all strands of the primary curriculum for students of all ages and abilities.

Recommendation 5



working in concert with local schools (Leavy, Hourigan and McMahon, 2010). Innovative

approaches such as Lesson Study has been found to be highly effective with classrooms

teachers and provide opportunities for a radical change in how professional development is

provided in the Irish education system.

Actions aimed at assisting parents and communities to support the development of mathematical literacy Anecdotal evidence from schools and parents indicates that parents have difficulty supporting

the mathematical literacy of their children. This may occur as a result of their own

mathematical competency, their attitudes and experiences of mathematics, or due to lack of

familiarity with new pedagogies and approached to teaching mathematics (for example the

‘decomposition’ versus ‘borrow-and-pay-back’ methods of subtraction).

•The provision of professional development in mathematics education and the monitoring of the CPD provision to ensure the delivery of high quality courses responsive to the needs of teachers.

Recommendation 6

•The provision of opportunities for parents to refresh and update their own understandings of mathematics with specific attention to everyday approaches to support the development of their children’s mathematical literacy.

Recommendation 7



References

Ball, D.L. 1988. Unlearning to teach mathematics. For the Learning of Mathematics, 8(1), 40-48.

Ball, D.L., 1990. The Mathematical Understanding That Prospective Teachers Bring to Teacher

Education. The Elementary School Journal, 90 (4): 449-466.

Ball, D.L., H.C. Hill and H. Bass, 2005. Knowing Mathematics for Teaching- Who Knows

Mathematics Well Enough to Teach Third Grade, and How can we decide? American Educator,

Fall: 15-46.

Ball, D., Thames, M.H., and G. Phelps, 2008. Content Knowledge for Teaching What Makes It Special? Journal of Teacher Education, 59(5), 389-407.

Berliner, D. and S. Nichols, 2007. High-Stakes Testing is Putting the Nation At Risk. Education

Week, Vol. 26 (27), 36, 48.

Borko, H., Eisenhart, M., Brown, C. A., Underhill, R. G., Jones, D., & P.C. Agard, 1992. Learning to

teach hard mathematics: Do novice teachers and their Instructors give up too easily? Journal for

Research in Mathematics Education, 23, No. 3, 194-222.

Burke, A., 2000. The Devils Bargain Revisited: The B.Ed. Degree Under Review. Oideas, 48: 7- 59.

Carr, J., 2004a. ‘Statement by John Carr, General Secretary, Irish National Teachers’

Organisation, on Class Size in Primary Schools: 7 November, 2004’, *Accessed on-line],

http://www.into.ie/html/publications/press/release_index/07112004JC.htm, Last accessed on

5/01/2005.

Carr, J., 2004b. ‘International Study shows Irish pupils on a par with their peers in other

countries’ Statement from INTO Education Conference, on Mathematics: , 7 December, 2004,

[Accessed on-line],

http://www.into.ie/html/publications/press/release_index/07122004JC.htm, Last accessed on

25/01/2005.

Comiti, C. and D. Loewenberg-Ball, 1996. Preparing Teachers to Teach Mathematics: A

Comparative Perspective. In: International Handbook of Mathematics Education: Part II, A.J.

Bishop, K. Clements, C. Kentel, J. Kilpatrick and C. Laborde (eds). Dodrecht: Kluwer Academic

Publishers, 1123-1153.

http://www.into.ie/html/publications/press/release_index/07112004JC.htm

http://www.into.ie/html/publications/press/release_index/07122004JC.htm



Commission of the European Communities, 2007. ‘Improving the Quality of Teacher Education:

Communication from the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament’, [Accessed

on-line], http://ec.europa.eu/Education/com392_en.pdf, Last accessed on 13/4/2009.

Corcoran, D., 2005a. An Exploration of the Mathematical Literacy of Irish Students Preparing to

be Primary School Teachers Knowledge of Irish Primary Pre-Service Teachers. In: Proceedings of

the First National Conference on Research in Mathematics Education (MEI 1)16th, 17th

September, 2005: Theme: 'Opening Doors’, S. Close, D. Corcoran and T. Dooley, eds. Dublin: St.

Patrick’s College of Education, 220-233.

Corcoran, D., 2005b. ‘Mathematics Subject Knowledge of Irish Pre-Service Primary Teachers’,

Paper presented at European Conference of Educational Research, UCD, Dublin, 7- 10

September, 2005, [Accessed on-line],

http://www.leeds.ac.uk/educol/documents/144080.doc, Last accessed on 12/02/2008.

Department of Education and Skills, 2010a. Better Literacy and Numeracy for Schools. Dublin:

DES.

Department of Education and Skills, 2010b. Incidental Inspection Findings 2010. A Report on the Teaching and Learning of English and Mathematics in Primary Schools. Dublin: DES www.education.ie

Delaney, S., 2010. Knowing What Counts. Irish Primary Teachers’ Mathematical Knowledge for

Teaching. Dublin: DES & Marino College.

Delaney, S.F. 2008. Adapting and using U.S. measures to study Irish teachers’ mathematical

knowledge for teaching. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation. The University of Michigan.

Eivers, E., S. Close, G. Shiel, D. Millar, A. Clerkin, L. Gilleece and J. Kiniry, 2010. The 2009

National Assessments of Mathematics and English Reading. Dublin: Stationary Office.

Eivers, E., G. Shiel and R. Cunningham, 2007. Ready for Tomorrow’s World? The Competence of

Irish 15-year-olds in PISA 2006. Main Report. Dublin: Educational Research Centre.

European Commission, 2007. ‘Education and Training 2010 Programme Cluster ‘Teachers and

Trainers’ Main Policy Conclusions 2005-2007’, *Accessed on-line],

http://ec.europa.eu/Education/policies/2010/doc/reportpeer5_en.pdf, Last accessed on

28/02/2009.

Expert Group on Future Skills Needs (EGSFN), 2008. Statement on Raising National

Mathematical Achievement, Dublin: E.G.F.S.N., [Accessed on-line],

http://www.forfas.ie/media/Raising%20National%20Mathematical%20Achievement%20-

%20Final%20WEB.pdf, Last accessed on 02/06/2009.

http://ec.europa.eu/education/com392_en.pdf

http://www.leeds.ac.uk/educol/documents/144080.doc

http://www.education.ie/

http://ec.europa.eu/education/policies/2010/doc/reportpeer5_en.pdf

http://www.forfas.ie/media/Raising%20National%20Mathematical%20Achievement%20-%20Final%20WEB.pdf

http://www.forfas.ie/media/Raising%20National%20Mathematical%20Achievement%20-%20Final%20WEB.pdf



Falmer, J.D., H. Gerretson and M. Lassak, 2003. What Teachers Take from Professional

Development: Cases and Implications. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 6: 331-360.

Feiman-Nemser, S., 2001. From Preparing to Practice: Designing a Continuum to Strengthen and

Sustaining Teaching. Teachers College Record, 103 (6): 1013-1055.

Fennema, E., and M.L. Franke, 1992. Teachers’ knowledge and its impact. In D. A. Groews (Ed.), Handbook of research on mathematics teaching and learning (pp. 147–164). New York: Macmillan.

Government of Ireland, 1999a. Mathematics Curriculum. Dublin: Stationery Office.

Government of Ireland, 1999b. Mathematics Curriculum: Teacher Guidelines. Dublin: Stationery

Office.

Government of Ireland, 2002. Preparing Teachers for the 21st Century: Report of the Working

Group on Primary Preservice Teacher Education. Dublin: Stationary Office.

Government of Ireland, 2005a. An Evaluation of Curriculum Implementation in Primary Schools:

English, Mathematics and Visual Arts. Dublin: Stationary Office.

Government of Ireland, 2005b. Literacy and Numeracy in Disadvantaged Schools: Challenges for

Teachers and Learners: An Evaluation by the Inspectorate of the Department of Education of

Science. Dublin: Stationary Office.

Goulding, M., 2003. An Investigation into the Mathematical Knowledge of Primary Teacher

Trainees. In: Proceedings of the British Society for Research into Learning Mathematics 23(2)

University of Oxford, 7 June, J. Williams, ed, 73-78, [Accessed on-line],

http://www.bsrlm.org.uk/IPs/ip23-2/BSRLM-IP-23-2-Full.pdf, Last accessed on 08/04/2009.

Grossman, P., A. Schoenfeld and C. Lee, 2005. Teaching Subject Matter. In: Preparing Teachers

for a Changing World: What Teachers Should Learn and Be Able to Do, L. Darling-Hammond and

J. Bransford, (eds), San Francisco: Jorsey- Bass, 201-231.

Hill, H.C., S.G. Schilling. and D.L. Ball, 2004. Developing Measures of Teachers’ Mathematics

Knowledge for Teaching. The Elementary School Journal. 105 (1): 11-30.

Hill, H.C., B. Rowan and D.L. Ball, 2005. Effects of Teachers’ Mathematical Knowledge on

Student Achievement. American Educational Research Journal. 42 (2): 371-406.



Hourigan, M., 2009. Improving the Mathematics Knowledge of Primary Pre-service Teachers

through a Voluntary Targeted Learning Support Intervention. Unpublished doctoral dissertation,

University of Limerick.

Hourigan, M. and J. O’Donoghue 2007. Mathematical underpreparadeness: The influence of

pre-tertiary mathematics experiences on students’ ability to make a successful transition to

tertiary level mathematics courses in Ireland. International Journal of Mathematics Education in

Science and technology, 38(4), 461-477.

Kahan, J.A., D.A. Cooper and K.A. Bethea, 2002. ‘The Role of Mathematics Teachers’ Content

Knowledge in their Teaching: A Framework for Research Applied to a Study of Student

Teachers’. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 6: 223-252.

Keller, E.F., 1983. A Feeling for the Organism: The Life and Work of Barbara McClintock. New

York: W. H. Freeman.

Leavy, A.M., 2010. Preparing Pre-service Teachers to Teach Informal Inferential Reasoning.

Statistics Education Research Journal. 9(1), 46-67, http://www.stat.auckland.ac.nz/serj

Leavy, A.M. 2009. A Picture is Worth a Thousand Words: Insights into Graphicacy Skills of

Primary Preservice Teachers. In S. Close, T. Dooley and D. Corcoran (Eds.), Proceedings of the

Second National Conference on Research on Mathematics Education in Ireland –MEI II. St.

Patrick’s College Dublin.

Leavy, A.M. 2004. Indexing Distributions of Data: Pre-service Teachers’ Notions of

Representativeness. School Science and Mathematics, 104(3), 119-134.

Leavy, A.M., M. Hourigan and A. McMahon, 2010. Facilitating inquiry based learning in

mathematics teacher education. In: Proceedings of the Third Science and Mathematics

Education Conference. Dublin City University, 16th and 17th of September, 2010.

Leavy, A.M. and F. Sloane, 2010. Developing Statistical Literacy in Primary Level Mathematics.

Dublin: Stationary Office.

Leavy, A. and N. O’ Loughlin, 2006. Pre-service Teachers Understanding of the Mean: Moving

Beyond the Arithmetic Average. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 9: 53-90.

Leinhardt, G. and D.A. Smith 1985. Expertise in mathematics instruction: Subject matter knowledge. Journal of Educational Psychology, 77, 247–271.

Lyons, M., Lynch, K., Close, S., Sheeran, E., and Boland, P. (2003) Inside Classrooms: a Study of

Teaching and Learning. Dublin: Institute of Public Administration.

http://www.stat.auckland.ac.nz/serj



Ma, L., 1999. Knowing and Teaching Elementary Mathematics: Teachers’ Understanding of

Fundamental Mathematics in China and the United States. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum

Associates.

McMahon, A., 2004. Is there adequate provision for mathematically gifted children in Irish

primary schools?: A qualitative study. Unpublished M.Ed. Thesis: UL

Mullis, I.V.S, M.O. Martin, A.E. Beaton, E.J. Gonzalez, D.L. Kelly and T.A. Smith, 1997.

Mathematics Achievement in the Primary School Years: IEA’s Third International Mathematics

and Science Study (TIMSS). Chestnut Hill, MA: Boston College.

Murphy, M. 2002. An Investigation into Mathematical Under-preparedness among Third Level

Entrants: The Possible Contribution of the Second Level Mathematics Experience. Unpublished

M.Ed. Thesis, University of Limerick, Ireland.

National Council for Curriculum and Assessment (NCCA), 2005a. Primary Curriculum Review

Phase 1: Final Report. Dublin: NCCA.

NCCA, 2005b. Review of mathematics in post-primary. A discussion paper. Dublin: NCCA.

NCCA, 2006. Review of Mathematics in Post-Primary Education: Report on the Consultation.

Dublin: Stationary Office.

NCCA, 2007. Assessment in the Primary School Curriculum: Guidelines for Schools. Dublin:

NCCA.

NCCA, 2008. Primary Curriculum Review. Dublin: NCCA.

NCCA, 2009. Aistear and the Primary School Curriculum. Audit: Similarities and differences.

http://www.ncca.ie/en/Curriculum_and_Assessment/Early_Childhood_and_Primary_Education

/Early_Childhood [last accessed 01/02/11].

Nesbitt Vacc, N. and G.W. Bright, 1994. Changing Preservice Teacher-Education Programs. In:

Professional Development for Teachers of Mathematics, D.B. Aichele and A.F. Coxford, (eds),

United States of America: NCTM, 115-127.

NAEYC & NCTM, 2002. Early childhood mathematics: Promoting good beginnings.

http://www.naeyc.org/files/naeyc/file/positions/psmath.pdf [last accessed 05/12/07].

O’ Donoghue, J., 1999. An Intervention to assist ‘at risk’ students in Service Mathematics courses

at the University of Limerick: Teaching Fellowship Report. Limerick: University of Limerick.

http://www.ncca.ie/en/Curriculum_and_Assessment/Early_Childhood_and_Primary_Education/Early_Childhood

http://www.ncca.ie/en/Curriculum_and_Assessment/Early_Childhood_and_Primary_Education/Early_Childhood

http://www.naeyc.org/files/naeyc/file/positions/psmath.pdf



O’Shea, J., 2003. A Clinical Investigation into Fourth Class Pupils’ Problem Solving Approaches.

Irish Educational Studies, 22(2), 47-62.

O’Shea, J. 2009. Endeavouring to teach mathematical problem solving from a constructivist

perspective: The experiences of primary teachers. Unpublished doctoral dissertation: University

of Limerick.

O’Shea, J. and A. M. Leavy, 2010. Fostering Positive Attitudes towards Mathematical Problem

Solving in the Primary School utilising Constructivist Methods: Lessons from Practice. In

Proceedings of the Third Science and Mathematics Education Conference. Dublin City

University, 16th and 17th of September, 2010.

Oldham, E., 2005. Solving Problems with Student-Teachers: Reactions and Reflections 1995-

2005. In: Proceedings of the First National Conference on Research in Mathematics Education

(MEI 1)16th, 17th September, 2005: Theme: 'Opening Doors’, S. Close, T. Dooley and D.

Corcoran, eds. Dublin: St. Patrick’s College of Education, 250-264.

Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development, 2003. Assessing Scientific, Reading

and Mathematical Literacy. OECD: Paris.

Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), 2005. Teachers Matter:

Attracting, Developing and Retaining Effective Teachers. OECD: Paris.

Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), 2008. Education at a Glance.

OECD: Paris.

Peard, R., 2007. ‘What Constitutes Quantitative Literacy for Pre-Service Primary Teachers’,

Conference Presentation Philosophy of Education Society of Australia, [Accessed online],

http://www.pesa.org.au/html/documents/2007-papers/Peard,%20Robert.pdf,Last accessed on

10/02/2009.

Petrou, M., 2007. ‘Michigan Research on Developing A Practice-Based Theory of Content

Knowledgen of Teaching’, *Accessed on-line],http://www.maths-d.org.uk/mkit/Petrou

_Nuffield_MKiT_270907.pdf, Last accessed on 04/06/2009.

Root-Bernstein, R. 1997. For the sake of science, the arts deserve support. The Chronicle of

Higher Education, p. B6.

Rowan, B., Chiang, F., & R.J. Miller 1997. Using research on employees’ performance to study the effects of teachers on students’ achievement. Sociology of Education, 70, 256–284.

http://www.pesa.org.au/html/documents/2007-papers/Peard,%20Robert.pdf

http://www.maths-d.org.uk/mkit/Petrou%20_Nuffield_MKiT_270907.pdf

http://www.maths-d.org.uk/mkit/Petrou%20_Nuffield_MKiT_270907.pdf



Rowland, T., P. Huckstep and A. Thwaites, 2005. Elementary Teachers’ Mathematics Subject

Knowledge: The Knowledge Quartet and the Case of Naoimi. Journal of Mathematics Teacher

Education, 8: 255-281.

Rowland, T., F. Turner, A. Thwaites and P. Huckstep, 2009. Developing Primary Mathematics

Teaching: reflecting on practice with the Knowledge Quartet. London: Sage.

Salk, 1983. Anatomy and Reality: Merging of Intuition and Reason. Columbia University Press,

NY.

Schifter, D. 2001. Learning to see the invisible: What skills and knowledge are needed to engage

with students’ mathematical ideas? In T. Wood, B. Scott Nelson & J. Warfield (Eds.), Beyond

Classical Pedagogy: Teaching Elementary School Mathematics (pp. 109-134). Mahwah, NJ:

Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Shulman, L., 1986. Those who understand: knowledge growth in teaching. Educational

Researcher, 15(2): 4-14.

Shiel, G., Perkins, R., Close, S., and E. Oldham, 2007. PISA mathematics: A teacher's guide.

Dublin: Department of Education and Science.

Shiel, G. and D. Kelly, 2001. The 1999 National Assessment of Mathematics Achievement.

Dublin: ERC.

Smith, C.M.M. and M.J. Sutherland, 2003. Creating a Community of Teacher –Learners. Journal

of Inservice Education, 29(3): 423-437.

Steffe, L.P., 1999. ‘On the Knowledge of Mathematics Teachers’. In: Constructivist Views on the

Teaching and Learning of Mathematics: Journal for Research in Mathematics Education:

Monograph Number 4, R.B. Davis, C.A. Maher and N. Noddings (eds). Virginia: N.C.T.M., 167-

184.

Surgenor, P., G. Shiel, S. Close and D. Millar, 2006. Counting on Success: Mathematics

Achievement in Irish Primary Schools. Dublin: Department of Education and Science

Inspectorate.

Surgenor, P. and G. Shiel, 2008. Parity of Provision? Learning Support for English and

Mathematics in Irish Primary Schools. Irish Educational Studies, 27 (2): 107-119.

Volmink, J. (1994). ‘Mathematics for all’ in Lerman, S. (ed.), Cultural perspectives on the

mathematics classroom. Dordrecht: Kluwer.



Wall, E., 2001. A Study of the Mathematical Content Knowledge of Primary Teacher Education

Students. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Dublin: University College Dublin.

Wu, H., 2006. ‘How mathematicians can contribute to K-12 mathematics Education’, *Accessed

on-line], [email protected], Last accessed on 20/02/2007.

mailto:[email protected]



Gaeilge

Seán de Brún, Seán Ó Cathalláin,

Siobhán Ní Mhurchú

Coláiste Mhuire gan

Smál

Ollscoil Luimnigh



AN GHAEILGE

Luaitear sa dréachtphlean ar litearthacht agus uimhearthacht go mbaineann an dréachtphlean

seo le chéad teanga na scoile (DES, 2010a: 9, 29), an Ghaeilge i gcás na scoileanna Gaeltachta

agus na scoileanna lán-Ghaeilge. Ach tuigtear dúinn gur litearthacht Bhéarla amháin atá faoi

chaibidil. Má tá litearthacht sa Ghaeilge san áireamh, an bhfuil aon fhianaise sa dréachtphlean a

léiríonn go bhfuil géarghá le plean náisiúnta litearthachta don Ghaeilge do na scoileanna T1?

Níor deineadh aon bhreathnú ar aon cheacht Ghaeilge i Scoileanna T1 nó T2 mar chuid de

thuairisc na gcigirí (DES, 2010b). É sin go léir ráite, táimid go mór i bhfábhar gníomhú chun

feabhas a chur ar chaighdeán litearthachta na bpáistí sna scoileanna seo.

Scoileanna Gaeltachta agus Scoileanna lán-Ghaeilge

An Comhthéacs

Tá an comhthéacs sochtheangeolaíoch sna scoileanna seo an-chasta agus ní mór é sin a aithint.

Mar shampla tá Béarla mar chéad teanga ag formhór na bpáistí sna scoileanna lán-Ghaeilge. Tá

Gaeilge nó teanga eile mar mháthairtheanga ag mionlach an-bheag sna scoileanna sin. Sna

scoileanna Gaeltachta d’fhéadfadh Gaeilge, Béarla nó teanga eile a bheith ag an bpáiste mar

mháthairtheanga.

Moltaí

Forbairt na Litearthachta agus Taighde V Tástáil agus Tuairisciú

B’fhearr go mór an bhéim a chur ar fhorbairt na litearthachta sna scoileanna seo seachas an

bhéim a chur ar thástáil agus ar thuairisciú. Chuige sin ba chóir tacú le scoileanna Gaeltachta,

mar shampla, cláir litearthachta scoilbhunaithe agus pobalbhunaithe a fhorbairt agus a chur in

oiriúint do na leanaí faoina gcúram, ag cur san áireamh oidhreacht, cultúr, seanchas agus

béaloideas an cheantair, agus le béim ar chur chuige traschuraclaim. Tá ábhar den scoth

foilsithe ag an Aonad Forbartha Curaclaim i gColáiste Mhuire gan Smál cheana féin (Ó Cathasaigh,

1998; 2003; 2009) a chabhródh go mór le múinteoirí an cur chuige seo a chur i bhfeidhm sa seomra ranga.



An Curaclam

Ba chóir anois athbhreithniú iomlán a dhéanamh ar an dá churaclam Gaeilge (Scoileanna T1

agus T2).

Eolas Gairmiúil an Mhúinteora

Ní mór cúrsaí réamhsheirbhíse a sholáthar chun eolas agus tuiscint na n-ábhar múinteoirí ar

fhorbairt an dátheangachais agus ar fhorbairt na délitearthachta a chothú. Chomh maith leis sin

ní mór oiliúint ghairmiúil leanúnach (OGL) scoilbhunaithe, le linn na scoilbhliana, a chur ar

mhúinteoirí i scoileanna T1 chun eolas agus tuiscint an mhúinteora ar fhorbairt an

dátheangachais agus ar fhorbairt na délitearthachta a chothú.

Measúnú

B’fhearr go mór an bhéim a chur ar mheasúnú foirmitheach bunaithe ar dhírbhreathnú an

mhúinteora, ar thascanna agus trialacha deartha ag an múinteoir, ar phróifílí curaclaim (An

Roinn Oideachais agus Eolaíochta, 1999b: 173-174), agus ar bhailiúchán d’obair agus de

thionscadail an pháiste (An Roinn Oideachais agus Eolaíochta, 1999b; Ní Mhurchú, 2000). Má tá

trialacha caighdeánaithe le cur ar na leanaí ba chóir go mbeidís ‘ar aon dul leis na tascanna

foghlama a bhfuil taithí ag an bpáiste orthu’ (An Roinn Oideachais agus Eolaíochta, 1999b: 174).

Is trialacha caighdeánaithe critéirthagartha bunaithe ar na feidhmeanna teanga sa churaclam

Ghaeilge a bheadh ag teastáil chun an aidhm seo a bhaint amach. Maidir le forbairt trialacha

caighdeánaithe don Bhéarla agus don mhatamaitic i scoileanna T2 tugtar spriocanna do chur i

bhfeidhm an phlean ar leathanaigh 44 agus 45. Ach, faraoir, ní thugtar aon sprioc d’fhorbairt

trialacha caighdeánaithe don Ghaeilge. Caithfear a chinntiú nach mbeidh na scoileanna seo

fágtha in áit na leathphingine. Dá bhrí sin ba chóir go mbeadh na trialacha caighdeánaithe don

Ghaeilge ar fáil ón tús. Ba chóir go mbeadh na trialacha matamaitice ar fáil i mBéarla agus i

nGaeilge ón tús do na scoileanna seo.

Soláthar Múinteoirí

Tá sé in am anois cúrsaí ar leith a fhorbairt chun sruth leanúnach múinteoirí lán-cháilithe a chur

ar fáil atá toilteanach agus ábalta teagasc go héifeachtach trí mheán na Gaeilge (Mac Donncha

et al. 2005; Máirtín, 2006).



Litearthacht sa Dara Teanga do na Scoileanna T2

An Ghaeilge sa Churaclam

Is cuid lárnach de churaclam na bunscoile í an Ghaeilge. Moltar sa churaclam Gaeilge na ceithre

scil teanga, éisteacht, labhairt, léitheoireacht, agus scríbhneoireacht a fhorbairt go córasach

agus a chomhtháthú lena chéile. Faraoir, ní thugtar aon aitheantas don litearthacht sa dara

teanga sa dréachtphlean don litearthacht agus don uimhearthacht.

Moltaí

Litearthacht sa Dara Teanga

Teagasc trí Ghaeilge

Tuairiscíonn Harris et al. (2006) go dtacódh 24% de na tuismitheoirí i scoileanna T2 nach

múintear aon ábhar trí Ghaeilge iontu le hábhar nó dhó a theagasc trí Ghaeilge. Ag eascairt as

an taighde sin molann na húdair chéanna tacaíocht a thabhairt do scoileanna ar mhian leo

ábhair eile a theagasc trí Ghaeilge chun croí-chláir leathnaithe nó cineálacha idirmheánacha den

tumoideachas a fhorbairt agus a chur i bhfeidhm. Bheadh an cur chuige seo ag teacht leis an

ngluaiseacht oideachais ar a dtugtar ‘foghlaim lánpháirtithe ábhair agus teanga’ (Marsh, 2002),

gluaiseacht ‘atá ag fáil tacaíochta go gníomhach ó Rannán Pholasaí Teanga Chomhairle na

hEorpa’ (Harris et al., 2006: 178).

Is gá tacaíocht chuí a thabhairt do mhúinteoirí i scoileanna T2 litearthacht sa dara teanga a

chothú (An Roinn Oideachais agus Eolaíochta, 2007). Chuige sin ní mór réimse mór leabhar

do leanaí, leabhair leictreonacha, agus bogábhar don chlár bán idirghníomhach a sholáthar,

maraon le hoiliúint ar ghnéithe nua-aimseartha TEC a chur ar mhúinteoirí.



Oiliúint Ghairmiúil Leanúnach (OGL)

Ní mór oiliúint ghairmiúil leanúnach scoilbhunaithe, le linn na scoilbhliana, a chur ar mhúinteoirí

i scoileanna T2 chun eolas agus tuiscint an mhúinteora ar shealbhú an dara teanga agus ar

fhorbairt na délitearthachta a chothú.

Measúnú

B’fhearr go mór an bhéim a chur ar mheasúnú foirmitheach bunaithe ar dhírbhreathnú an

mhúinteora, ar thascanna agus trialacha deartha ag an múinteoir, ar phróifílí curaclaim (An

Roinn Oideachais agus Eolaíochta, 1999b: 173-174), agus ar bhailiúchán d’obair agus de

thionscadail an pháiste (An Roinn Oideachais agus Eolaíochta, 1999b; Ní Mhurchú, 2000).

Cumas Teanga an Mhúinteora

Baineann laigí le cumas teanga 25% de mhúinteoirí bunscoile agus tá deacrachtaí suntasacha ó

thaobh labhairt na teanga ag 9% de na múinteoirí (An Roinn Oideachais agus Eolaíochta, 2007).

Tá na huimhreacha seo ag teacht leis an taighde a dhein Harris et al. (2006). Dá bhrí sin ba chóir

na coinníollacha iontrála Gaeilge don chúrsa B.Oid. a ardú ó C3 go B1 san Ardteistiméireacht

(ardleibhéal). Chomh maith leis sin beidh gá le córas tacaíochta leanúnach chun cabhrú le

hábhair mhúinteoirí agus le múinteoirí lán-cháilithe feabhas a chur ar a gcumas Gaeilge.



Tagairtí

An Roinn Oideachais agus Eolaíochta (1999a) Curaclam na Bunscoile: Gaeilge. Baile Átha Cliath:

Oifig an tSoláthair.

An Roinn Oideachais agus Eolaíochta (1999b) Gaeilge: Treoirlínte do Mhúinteoirí. Baile Átha

Cliath: Oifig an tSoláthair.

An Roinn Oideachais agus Eolaíochta (2007) An Ghaeilge sa Bhunscoil: Staidéir Mheastóireachta

na Cigireachta. Baile Átha Cliath: An Roinn Oideachais agus Eolaíochta.

DES (2010a) Better Literacy and Numeracy for Children and Young People: A Draft National Plan to Improve Literacy and Numeracy in Schools. Dublin: DES.

DES (2010b) Incidental Inspection Findings 2010. A Report on the Teaching and Learning of

English and Mathematics in Primary School. Inspectorate Evaluation Studies: Dublin.

Harris, J., Forde, P., Archer, P., Nic Fhearaile, S., agus O’Gorman, M. (2006) An Ghaeilge sna

bunscoileanna: Treochtaí náisiúnta fadtéarmacha in inniúlacht. Baile Átha Cliath: Oifig an

tSoláthair.

Mac Donnacha, S., Ní Chualáin, F., Ní Shéaghdha, A. agus Ní Mhainín, T. (2005) Staid Reatha na

Scoileanna Gaeltachta 2004. Baile Átha Cliath: An Chomhairle um Oideachas Gaeltachta agus

Gaelscolaíochta.

Máirtín, C. (2006) Soláthar Múinteoirí do na Bunscoileanna lán-Ghaeilge. Baile Átha Cliath: An

Chomhairle um Oideachas Gaeltachta agus Gaelscolaíochta.

Marsh, D. (2002) CLIL (Content and Language Integrated Learning): The European dimension.

Actions, trends and foresight potential. Jyväskylä: University of Jyväskylä.

Ní Mhurchú, S. (2000) How can I improve my practice as a teacher in the area of assessment

through the use of portfolios? Unpublished MA dissertation, Cork, University of the West of

England, Bristol.

Ó Cathasaigh, R. (1998) Rabhlaí Rabhlaí: Rogha Rannta Traidisiúnta don Aos Óg. Luimneach: An

tAonad Forbartha Curaclaim, Coláiste Mhuire Gan Smál.

Ó Cathasaigh, R. (2003) Scéilín Ó Bhéilín: Scéalta Traidisiúnta don Aos Óg. Luimneach: An


Ó Cathasaigh, R. (2009) Tídil Eidil Éró: Anhránaíocht Thraidisiúnta don Aos Óg. Luimneach: An


response to the draft national plan to improve literacy ... · department of language, literacy,...

Documents